Republicanism, Sinophilia, and Historical Writing: Thomas Gordon (c.1691-1750) and his 'History of England' 9782503536842, 2503536840

Citation preview

Republicanism, Sinophilia, and Historical Writing

EARLY EUROPEAN RESEARCH General Editors Andrew Lynch, University of Western Australia Claire McIlroy, University of Western Australia Editorial Board Emilia Jamroziak, University of Leeds Matthias Meyer, University of Vienna Juanita Feros Ruys, University of Sydney Jon Vidar Sigurdsson, University of Oslo Nicholas Terpstra, University of Toronto

Previously published volumes in this series are listed at the back of this book.

Volume 4

Republicanism, Sinophilia, and Historical Writing Thomas Gordon (c. 1691–1750) and his ‘History of England’ by

Giovanni Tarantino

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Tarantino, Giovanni. Republicanism, Sinophilia, and historical writing : Thomas Gordon (c.1691-1750) and his 'History of England'. -(Early English research ; v. 4) 1. Gordon, Thomas, d. 1750--Political and social views. 2. Gordon, Thomas, d. 1750. History of England. 3. Political science--Philosophy--Early works to 1800. 4. Church and state--Great Britain--Early works to 1800. 5. Historiography--Great Britain--History--18th century. I. Title II. Series III. Gordon, Thomas, d. 1750. History of England. 907.2'02-dc23 ISBN-13: 9782503536842

© 2012, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2012/0095/209 ISBN: 978-2-503-53684-2 Printed on acid-free paper

To Barbara

Contents

Acknowledgements

ix

Introduction xiii

Part I. Thomas Gordon (c. 1691–1750) Chapter I. Thomas Gordon (c. 1691–1750): An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’ Chapter II. Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’: Anticlericalism, Republicanism, and Sinophilia in Walpolean England

3 49

Chapter III. ‘The wisdom of governing by Law’: Gordon’s Tacitus and Sallust, and his History of England 85

Part II. History of England by Thomas Gordon Foreword to the Critical Edition

137

Text-critical sigla

138

Walter Calverley Trevelyan’s letter accompanying the donation of the manuscript of Gordon’s History to the British Museum (1855)

139

Chapter 1. Of William the Norman, his Conquest and Conduct, and of Conquerors in General

141

Chapter 2. The Reign of William the 2d Sirnamed Rufus

169

viii

CONTENTS

Chapter 3. The Reign of Henry the First

193

Chapter 4. The Reign of King Stephen

221

Chapter 5. The Reign of Henry the Second

249

Chapter 6. The Reign of Henry the Third

329

Chapter 7. The Reign of Edward the Second

453

Chapter 8. The Reign of Edward the Third. Son of Edward the Second

469

Chapter 9. The Reign of James the First

501

Bibliography 577 Index 603

Acknowledgements

T

he making of this book has extended over several years, countries, and continents. It began in Cambridge in 2007, when I was completing a monograph on the freethinker Anthony Collins (1676–1729), the owner of one of the most subversive book collections in eighteenth-century Europe and an inspiring mentor of Thomas Gordon. It was continued in the years that followed at the prestigious academic institutions where I had the privilege to be admitted as a Research Fellow. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Institute for Advanced Study in Prince­ ton for enabling me to carry out my work as Hans Kohn Member of the School of Historical Studies for 2008–09. The IAS’s Director, Professor Peter Goddard, and all his staff, offered warm hospitality to a young scholar rather overwhelmed by the impressive array of beautiful minds around him. I am also deeply grateful for the comments on my research project and the insights provided by the participants in the monthly seminars at the IAS led by Professor Jonathan I. Israel, which proved to be extraordinary occasions for personal and intellectual development. The following year, a much smaller though extremely friendly and intellectually vibrant community of scholars welcomed me to the University of Western Australia in Perth. I would like to express my gratitude to Susan Broomhall, Yasmin Haskell, Andrew Lynch, and Philippa Maddern for giving me the opportunity to spend some time living and working in a paradise-like environment and for encouraging me to consider gender issues more consistently in my research. The book entered its final stages during my appointment as a Fellow of the Käte Hamburger Kolleg ‘Dynamics in the History of Religions’ at Ruhr University Bochum, in Germany. The Käte Hamburger Kolleg, enthusiastically directed by Professor Volkhard Krech, conceives the development of the major religious and ethical traditions as being a result of constant processes of ‘exchange, adapta-

x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

tion, and demarcation’, and explores the ‘intercultural compatibility’ of the term ‘religion’. My chapter on Gordon’s Sinophilia is indebted to the many generous insights provided by KHK members and international fellows. I am also grateful to the many museum curators, librarians, and archivists who assisted me, often far beyond the line of duty, and in particular to Arnold Hunt, Curator of Historical Manuscripts at the British Library; to Jenny Ramkalawon and Kim Sloan, curators in the Department of Prints and Drawings at the British Museum; to Marcia Tucker, librarian at the IAS Historical Studies and Social Science Library; and to Mairi Hunter, responsible for Reference and Local Studies at Dumfries and Galloway Libraries. Provisional versions of the chapters comprising the first part of the volume were presented at the lively Symposium on Romeijn de Hooghe convened by Henri Krop, Jo Spaans, and Wiep van Bunge at the University of Utrecht and at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam (21–22 October 2010), and at a seminar organized by Dominic Steavu and David Mervart at the Karl Jaspers Centre, Heidelberg University (26 May 2011). My thanks to the organizers and participants of both meetings for the thoughtful discussions that ensued. Parts of the first and third chapters appeared, in less detail and in Italian, in the Rivista Storica Italiana (112, 2010:2). My thanks to the editor, Professor Giuseppe Ricuperati, for his kind invitation to present my work in the journal. I benefited hugely from discussions with other colleagues, and their advice on a range of issues: Carlo Ginzburg, Yasmin Haskell, Ariel Hessayon, Lucian Hölscher, Nikolas Jaspert, Ulrich L. Lehner, Rolando Minuti, Martin J. Powers, J. G. A. Pocock, Heiner Roetz, and Edoardo Tortarolo. But of course the responsibility is mine alone for any shortcomings in this book. I wish to thank Simon Forde, publishing manager at Brepols, for his generous support and affirming spirit, and for all his careful work on the manuscript. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Jeremy Carden, Stefan Hagel, Lenore Hietkamp, Martine Maguire-Weltecke, Kate Mertes, and Mary-Jo Arn for the wonderful job they did polishing, editing, typesetting, and indexing the manuscript. Finally, my love and gratitude, as always, to Barbara. Without a doubt, this book is no less hers than mine. Florence, April 2012, Giovanni Tarantino Balzan Research Associate in the Faculty of Arts at the Scuola Normale of Pisa and Honorary Research Fellow in the School of Humanities at the University of Western Australia

C

ardinal De Retz says that with all the arguments and pains he could use, he could never bring the Queen Regent to understand the meaning of these words, the Public. She thought that to consult the interest of the People was to be a Republican, and had no notion that the Government of a Prince was any thing else but Royal Will and Authority, rampant and without bounds. Thomas Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’ (Disc. v, Sect. iv)

T

he whole naturally follows from allowing and establishing two short propositions; first ‘that, we are to submit our reason to faith’; next, ‘that our faith is to be directed by others’, be he one, or more, under any denomination whatsoever. These principles constitute Popery; these principles have raised the Papacy; these principles make Papists. They dispose men to trust without trial; to acquiescence without enquiry; […] to shut their eyes for fear of seeing, and to think they see clearest when their eyes are shut; to take ignorance for illumination. Nor can there be a better Reason given for the difference found between China, so full of People and Happiness, and other Countries equally fertile, but very miserable and almost desart; than that the Magistrates and men of Learning there profess no Religion but that of nature; and elsewhere the State fosters superstition and supports a Host of holy Juglers to propagate and defend it with awful jargon and solemn and expensive Buffonries, to the utter extinction of Religion, to the enslaving of all the rest in their Persons, Fortunes and Faculties, but to their own infinite Lucre and Importance. The Liberties of the People of England are not derived even from Magna Charta, but are presupposed and confirmed by it. […] Miserable must be that People who have not free Representatives to defend them from […] misrule and oppression. Such Representatives must be made by a Free Choice. Thomas Gordon, History of England, fols 207, 211v, 408v–409r

Introduction

I

n 1740 a curious little miscellaneous volume of just sixty-seven pages appeared in London. Together with the third edition of the anonymous parody of the trial of the natural philosopher William Whiston (1667– 1752) on charges of Arianism, there were a number of brief satiric texts, at times openly blasphemous and obscene, dwelling on the analogy between the entirely earthly hypocrisy, avidity, and ambition of the clergy and the unrestrainable pursuit of sexual satisfaction on the part of refined ladies and young women of good family, who even in church did their utmost not to pass unobserved. These texts included a ‘New Catechism for the Fine Ladies Assembled in Convocation’ (an obvious metaphor for the synod of the Anglican clergy), where the first commandment becomes ‘Thou shalt worship no other Idol but thyself ’; Alexander Pope’s ‘profane’ version of the first Psalm of David — ‘for the use of a young lady’;1 and an impassioned ‘Prayer for a Young Virgin in Great Distress’, who begs to meet ‘a strong, indefatigable and tender comforter’. The title of the collection appears, however, to be misleading, in that it seems to promise reassuring arguments that will help to re-establish the cardinal points of Christian doctrine and morals: The Tryal of William Whiston, Clerk, for Defaming and Denying the Holy Trinity, Before [and only here do we begin to detect the parodic intent] the Lord Chief Justice Reason. To Which is Subjoined, A New Catechism for the Fine Ladies. With a Specimen of a New Version of the Psalms by Mr. Pope, &c. The frontispiece informs us that the publication of the volume was the result of the initiative of ‘a Society for the Encouragement of Learning’.2 1 

Circulated anonymously as from 1716, and immediately attributed to Pope, despite a number of clumsy denials. 2  The second edition (published the previous year, again on behalf of ‘a Society for the Improvement of Learning’) also advised the reader that its pages were bound along with the

xiv

INTRODUCTION

A Society of this name did effectively exist. It had been founded in 1736 by a group of distinguished gentlemen worried about the editorial choices of booksellers and editors, who, they felt, were increasingly motivated only by the search for quick profits. The Society set out, in line with its statute, ‘to assist authors in the publication, and to secure to them the entire profits of their own works and to institute a republick of letters, for the promoting of arts and sciences’. The members, who included, amongst others, the celebrated Orientalist George Sale and three of the most eminent doctors of the time (Richard Mead, James Douglas, and Alexander Stuart), agreed to pay an original subscription of ten guineas and a yearly contribution of two guineas for the support of the Society. Three printers were engaged (Bowyer, Bettenham, and Richardson), and an agreement was signed with nine London booksellers, whereby they sold the volumes in their bookshops, taking a modest agreed percentage on the price set by the Society itself.3 In its twelve years of activity, finally terminated by substantial debts, the Society produced important works such as Alexander Stuart’s Dissertatio de structura et motu musculari, Archibald Campbell’s The Necessity of Revelation, an English translation (by John Stewart, professor of Mathematics at the University of Aberdeen) of Isaac Newton’s Quadrature of Curves, and an edition of Aelian’s De animalibus by Dr Abraham Gronovius of Leyden.4 It is hard to believe that a society of this sort would have invested even a single shilling in the publication of our collection. And when examined with care, it will be seen that the frontispiece rather vaguely specifies a society, not the society. Furthermore, the third edition of the collection bore the name of J. Cooper in FleetStreet, a different bookseller to the nine engaged by the Society. In the appendix to this last edition a series of newly published works were also publicized, all of them printed for Edmund Curll, at Pope’s Head, in Rose Street, Covent Garden.5 Scheme for Amending the Ten Commandments, an amusing jeu d’esprit published in the same days by John Hildrop (1682–1756), a prolific author of satirical texts against deists and freethinkers. When it first came out in 1738 the Letter to a Member of Parliament Containing a Proposal for Bringing in a Bill to Revise, Amend, or Repeal Certain Obsolete Statutes, Commonly Called The Ten Commandments was attributed to Swift, but it appears in Hildrop’s Miscellaneous Works (1754). In 1739 Hildrop had also published An Essay for the Better Regulation and Improvement of Free-Thinking (1739) and The Contempt of the Clergy Considered (1739). In the second of these works, he argued for the liberation of the church from state control. 3  The agreement was signed first with A. Millar, J. Gray, and J. Nourse, and later with another six London booksellers: G. Strahan, C. Rivington, P. Vaillant, J. Brindley, S. Baker, and J. Osborn, Jr. In 1742 the Society chose to become their own booksellers. The following year, though, they again turned to three booksellers. 4  Atto, ‘The Society for the Encouragement of Learning’. 5  The list includes A Plain Account of the Trinity, from Scripture and Reason [by Edward

INTRODUCTION

xv

It was a case, then, of an unscrupulous editorial strategy dreamt up by a controversial, well-known, and generally feared publisher. Edmund Curll (d. 1747) had made his mark on the London publishing market from an early age, both for his systematic breaching of copyright on the works of eminent contemporary poets and for the publication of a series of books about ‘Merryland’, in which the female body was described with a topographical metaphor. Daniel Defoe even coined a new term for the production of such prurient books: curlicism. Curll also distinguished himself for the instant publication of non-authorized biographies of public figures who had just died. It was said that ‘Curll had added a new terror to death’.6 It has been speculated, though, that Curll’s ‘scandalous publications must have been greatly outnumbered by his respectable ones’. An extraordinarily wide range of texts (including theological, medical, and fictional works, plus translations and antiquarian materials) came from his press, ‘usually in cheaply produced editions, almost always priced at 1s. or 2s’.7 This information enables us to imagine a very broad readership, possibly the same public that purchased cartoons on political and religious topics, which, starting in the 1730s and 40s, became increasingly widespread: though not particularly cheap (6d. was the standard charge for a pirated copper-plate engraving), they reached a public that was lower in social standing than the great mass of middling people, who had both the literacy and the resources to take an interest in more sophisticated products.8 In the light of these considerations, we can return now to the collection with which we started, and look at the parody of the trial of William Whiston. Of course there was nothing obscene about it, but it certainly seemed to confirm the tendency of its author, a pamphleteer of Scottish origin called Thomas Gordon, ‘to speak very foolishly and wickedly against Christianity, and a future state’, as reported, in belittling terms, by the son of Whiston himself, the bookseller John (1711–80), to whom we owe the attribution of this text to Gordon.9 Johnson, a merchant] Wherein It Is Clearly Proved, that the Belief of this Doctrine, as Imposed by Church Authority, Is a Humane Invention, and Not to Be Found in the Scriptures; The Natural Secret History of Both Sexes [by Luke Ogle]; and Bibliotheca Recondita, Or a Collection of Curious Private Pieces [mainly of a political, legal, and sexual nature], some of which great endeavours have been used to conceal from publick view. 6  Baines and Rogers, Edmund Curll, Bookseller, pp. 1, 281. 7  MacKenzie, ‘Curll, Edmund’. 8  Langford, Walpole and the Robinocracy. 9  Nichols, Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, i, 710. Whiston’s account relates to a gathering at the residence of Jacob des Bouverie (a philanthropist and patron of science, and the future first Viscount Folkestone), which they both attended.

xvi

INTRODUCTION

The Tryal of William Whiston, prior even to being the parody of a heresy trial, was a satirical radicalization of a narrative expedient successfully employed not much earlier by Bishop Thomas Sherlock, a highly active polemical interlocutor of deists, Socinians, and freethinkers. In the wake of the condemnation, in 1729, of the deist Thomas Woolston, whose Discourses on the Miracles of Our Saviour were deemed blasphemous, Sherlock had published a representation, in the guise of trial proceedings, of the opposing views on the credibility of the evangelical witnesses regarding the resurrection of Christ. This ended, predictably, with the jury clearing the apostles of the charge of bearing false witness (The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus). Woolston had been arraigned following his participation in the debate about the ‘prophetic proof ’ (of Jesus’s messianism) stimulated by A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion (1724), Anthony Collins’s well-known confutation of a text by William ­Whiston.10 Thomas Gordon had been a friend and admirer of Collins,11 sharing his anticlerical commitment and deist or more possibly atheistic inclinations. In his vast pamphleteering output, he also became a pugnacious upholder of freedom of opinion and expression of thought. Whiston’s academic vicissitudes contributed to making the distance between Collins or Gordon’s positions and those of the Anglican hierarchy even more obvious. He was a famous mathematician who had succeeded Newton as Lucasian Professor at Cambridge, and the English translator of Josephus. On Sunday, 22 October 1710, he was summoned into the lodge of the Vice Chancellor, Dr Charles Roderick, Provost of King’s College in Cambridge. The majority of the heads of the other colleges had been assembled there to publicly contest the diffusion (through his Sermons and Essays upon Several Subjects, 1709) of teachings contra religionem et statuta academiae. In particular, he was charged with having questioned the apostolic origin of the Trinitarian doxology in the Anglican liturgy (‘Glory be to the Father, to the Son and to the Holy Ghost’). Whiston was banned from the university and his professorship was decreed void. Subsequent attempts to bring Whiston before the Convoca10  Whiston, An Essay Towards Restoring the True Text of the Old Testament, in which Whiston had attributed the incongruences between the Old and New Testament to corruption of the biblical text by the Jews. Collins had preceded his confutation with a long preface of over sixty pages, in which he defended freedom of opinion and of the press and therefore Whiston’s right to express his views publicly. It was the obscurity of the Scriptures themselves, Collins had explained, that made a diversity of opinions inevitable, ‘and God himself, by forming men as he has done, and by placing them in their present circumstances, seems to have design’d, that they should not agree in opinion; or, at least, seems not to have design’d, that they should agree’ (p. xxxix). 11  See Trenchard and Gordon, A Collection of Tracts, p. 1 (‘To the Public’).

INTRODUCTION

xvii

tion for his heretical ideas were curiously rendered vain by uncertainty about the authority required to enforce a sentence of excommunication.12 Gordon, who seems to have received some legal training in his youth, decided to stage Whiston’s trial in a literary, almost theatrical, form and to amplify the controversial aspects as much as possible. The prosecution witnesses appear uncertain about their doctrines and filled with rage: they proudly report having struck Whiston when he voiced his views in public. One of them even threatens to resort to the fury of the people if the defendant was found not guilty: ‘If I cannot have Justice from the Court, I will have it from the People. Fire; Murder; the Church is in Danger; down with the Hereticks; tear them to Pieces; beat their Brains out; knock’. But the judge rebukes him immediately: ‘I would have you consider Sir, that you are not at Oxford, or in Convocation, but before an impartial Court of Justice, which is the Guardian of our Liberties’. The jury finally clears the accused, convinced that ‘vicious and corrupted priests’ have invented absurd doctrines with a deliberate intent ‘to confound the Understandings, and to destroy the Liberties of Mankind’.13 It should be noted that the second edition of the Tryal (1739) was a revised version with the extension of small parts of the first one (1734), and that the character of a Turk, Mustapha Ben Hamet, only appears in the third edition (1740).14 All this presupposes constant dealings between author and publisher, who we now know was the able and unprincipled Edmund Curll. This was also the period of the passing of the Licensing Act (1737), which had introduced invasive preventive censoring of theatre shows. The synergy between these two men reveals a carefully devised cultural strategy designed to side-step the government clamp-down on public debate concerning politically and socially destabilizing issues, not just freedom of opinion on religious matters but also equity in trial procedures. This anticipated a theme that would become increasingly common in late eighteenth-century fictional texts, in which there was a recurrent tendency to poke fun at the British legal system and to portray judges and lawyers as being more villainous than those on trial.15 12  Queen Anne’s government apparently found it impolitic to openly endorse the Convo­ cation’s censure of Whiston. For more about Whiston, see Duffy, ‘Whiston’s Affair’; Force, William Whiston, Honest Newtonian; Shear, ‘William Whiston’s Judeo-Christianity’. 13  The Tryal of William Whiston, Clerk. For Defaming and Denying the Holy Trinity, Before the Lord Chief Justice Reason (London: 1734), p. 21. All italics are in the original, unless otherwise indicated. The original capitalization has been generally retained. 14  A manuscript copy of the first edition is now preserved in Cambridge, Libr. of Clare College, MS G.3.27. Originally held in Sir Thomas Phillips’s collection of manuscripts, it was presented to Clare College by James Rendel Harris. 15  In Sallust, The Works, ed. and trans. by Gordon, Gordon comments: ‘Who would not

xviii

INTRODUCTION

Gordon had adopted a similar tone a number of years earlier when, in a nonsatirical text that was never published, he reconstructed another historic trial for heresy, which had ended in 1417 with Lord Cobham ( John Oldcastle), the English Lollard leader, being sentenced to death by hanging and burning at the stake. ‘Lord Cobham’ — he wrote — ‘took his faith from the only fountain whence it can be taken: the conviction of his Conscience. Lord Cobham had Religion, [his persecutors] had a System: he was a good Christian and they were Good Churchmen’.16 But if that manuscript never saw the light of day, Gordon’s anticlerical opinions were nevertheless disseminated in dozens of other writings, the popularity of which rose in proportion to the use he made of a debunking satirical tone17 and the narrative artifice of the counter-position between two irreconcilable theses, like the one between the prosecution and the defence in a trial. In 1740, for example, a fictional Dialogue Between Monsieur Jurieu, and rather be […] an Algernon Sydney, sentenced to die for the everlasting Principles of Truth and Liberty, than a Jefferies, infamously exalted to the Tribunal of Justice, and pronouncing that wicked sentence?’ Known as the ‘Hanging Judge’, George Jeffreys (1645–85) was England’s most reviled judge. It comes as no surprise then that everyone recognized the character of Judge HateGood in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress to be the notorious judge Jeffreys, who had tonguelashed and insulted the mild-mannered Puritan leader Richard Baxter when he was tried for libel. In the last of his ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’, Gordon adds, that ‘in arbitrary Countries, a Man may be innocent, yet punished legally; because the same absolute Will which creates the Guilt, finds the Evidence’. See also Gordon, History of England, fols 360 and 388v–389r. 16  BL, MS Addit. 21153, fol. 16v. In 1852, Robert Cox, the anti-sabbatarian writer, wrote to Sir Walter Trevelyan, who at the time was in possession of Gordon’s manuscript, stating that it did not deserve to be printed ‘as his opinions are now much more universally admitted than they were 100 years ago and his style is more full of invective than is expedient in this more refined age’ (fol. 3). 17  In article 39 of the Independent Whig, entitled ‘Priests afraid of ridicule’, in which the theme of Molière’s Tartuffe is effectively summarized, Gordon suggested resorting to two formidable weapons against the clergy, namely Reason and Ridicule, ‘the former of which discovers Truth, and the latter exposes Fraud’. The use of ridicule as a critical instrument for verifying the seriousness of an argument or the reliability of a text had been encouraged and justified a few years previously by the third Earl of Shaftesbury in Sensus Communis (1709), and extracts of this work appeared in A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony, published anonymously by Anthony Collins in 1729. According to Collins, ‘the opinions and practises of men in all matters, and especially in matters of religion, are generally so absurd and ridiculous that it is impossible for them not to be the subjects of ridicule’. Furthermore, ‘books of satire, wit, humour, ridicule, drollery, and irony, are the most read and applauded of all books, in all ages, languages, and countries’, and can also reach unsophisticated readers ‘who sleep under all works which do not make them merry’. See Agnesina, ‘Sur l’attribution à Anthony Collins’ du “Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony”’.

INTRODUCTION

xix

a Burgomaster of Rotterdam was republished in Amsterdam ‘for the Benefit of the Publick’.18 The theologian Pierre Jurieu, Pierre Bayle’s former mentor and later denunciator, was represented as ‘a man of great vanity, and violent passion, [who] presented an angry and scolding petition to the Magistrates of Rotterdam to silence Mr Bayle’. The bone of contention was Jurieu’s belief that it would be opportune to remove Bayle from his professorship for having argued that a society of atheists could be well governed, that morality could be separated from faith, and that an erroneous conscience could not be anything other than innocent in the eyes of God. Jurieu’s protest in 1691 was not supported by the city’s authorities. Two years later, following a change in the political situation, Bayle was stripped of his professorship and pension. Gordon does not concern himself with the condemnation of Bayle, but focuses instead on mocking the arguments used to justify it: ‘The persuading all men to think alike, is as rational as to exhort them all to dream alike. What would you think, Mr Jurieu, of a mission to persuade the Negroes to change their erroneous black complexion, and become orthodoxly white?’ In 1750, a potentially catastrophic series of earthquakes that struck London and Westminster — fortunately without any significant damage — some five months before Gordon’s death, offered the occasion for a new stand-off between Gordon and Bishop Sherlock.19 This time the two speeches really did come from their respective authors, while the jury and defendants can both be identified with the readership, which, thanks to the very low sale price (just 6 pence each), was extremely large. In fact, it was the readers who had to decide if they deserved such an undifferentiated divine castigation or not. Sherlock, the Bishop of London, did not hesitate to sustain, in his Letter to the Clergy and People of London and Westminster; on occasion of the late Earthquakes, that divine rage, merely anticipated by those light tremors, had been aroused by insufficient censorship, by the uncontrolled production of printed works with satirical, philosophical, or erotic themes, by the daily performance of visual, theatrical, or musical shows on non-religious topics, and by the fact that children’s education was not informed by religious precepts. Gordon’s harangue, entitled A Letter of Consolation and Counsel to the Good People of England, made fun of the 18 

Gordon, Two Dialogues. These two fictional dialogues, first published in The British Journal in the 1720s (nos 66–68 and 75–78), had already found their way into the third volume of the 1735 sixth edition of the Independent Whig (see below). The first of them was also published separately. 19  See Rousseau, ‘The London Earthquakes of 1750’.

INTRODUCTION

xx

clergy, who usually promised that Heaven could be pacified by pacifying them. Sardonically, he pointed out that places commonly believed to be inextricable clusters of immorality and infidelity, such as Italy or Turkey, did not appear to be constantly threatened by natural disasters. Moreover, the two late shocks in London ‘were not more felt at Ranelagh and White’s — two famous key areas of prostitution in eighteenth-century London — than in the Abbey’. Gordon’s Letter was above all a potent manifesto for press freedom: ‘Take away public liberty, and you check the publick progress of Books: but with the suppression of the bad, the good will be suppressed. Who can settle the bounds and distinction between them? […] Who can fix the standard? […] Let Books answer Books. Is there any other way of answering?’ Gordon, whose many pseudonyms include ‘Britannicus’, ‘a True-born Englishman’, ‘a Free Briton’, and ‘a Layman’, also intervened with a series of pamphlets in the famous controversy sparked by the Bishop of Bangor, Benjamin Hoadly, with his sermon based on John 18. 36 (‘My kingship is not of this world’); he translated part of the preface by Jean Barbeyrac to Pufendorf ’s Droit de la nature et des gens, under the title The Spirit of the Ecclesiasticks of All Sects and Ages, and produced translations of Tacitus,20 Sallust, and Cicero, introducing each of the published volumes with lengthy ‘Political Discourses’. In Europe the ‘Political Discourses’ also circulated separately from the translation. Pierre Daudé (1681–1754) published various editions of his anonymous French version;21 this was consulted by such figures as Montesquieu, D’Alembert, Diderot, Grimm, 20 

A four-volume edition of Gordon’s Tacitus is mentioned in Arthur Conan Doyle’s Through the Magic Door (1907), a conversational tour of his favourite books. Doyle’s mention of Gordon is glossed with the following laudatory note: ‘Life is too short to read originals, so long as there are good translations’ (Chapter 1). 21  Gordon, Discours historiques, critiques et politiques sur Tacite, trans. by Daudé; Gordon, Discours historiques et politiques sur Salluste, trans. by Daudé; Gordon, Discours historiques, critiques et politiques […] sur Tacite et sur Salluste, trans. by Daudé. The Dutch edition was condemned to be burnt on 26 August 1751. See Haag and Haag, La France protestante, iv, p. 208; Douais, ‘Le Marquis de Pégueirolles’ (pp. 476–77); Hammersley, The English Republican Tradition, pp. 39–40, 50 n. 71, 89, 161, 163. Daudé (who held a post in the exchequer) had been a member of the Rainbow Coffee House group, a circle of mainly Huguenot intellectuals (some of them known for their interest in unorthodox ideas) who met informally at the Rainbow Coffee House in Lancaster Court, off St Martin’s Lane in London. English members apparently included Anthony Collins and John Toland. The chief source of information about the circle is the manuscript collection in the British Library of letters to its leading member, the Huguenot journalist, editor, and biographer Pierre Des Maizeaux (1673–1754). See Grist, ‘Rainbow Coffee House Group’.

INTRODUCTION

xxi

Mirabeau, and Voltaire,22 and many passages from it cropped up in Le Vieux Cordelier by Camille Desmoulins.23 His best-known works, though, are The Independent Whig and Cato’s Letters, both of them co-authored with the experienced freelance journalist and ‘Christian deist’ John Trenchard (1668/9–1723).24 Caroline Robbins has described the Independent Whig as ‘among the most widely read and important polemical works of the reign of George I’.25 A marked aversion to the clergy, and a rejection of their authority, appeared throughout. Instead, it was in favour of a rational religion stripped of dogmatic encrustations. As Thomas Murray wrote in 1822: 22  See Dedieu, Montesquieu et la tradition politique anglaise, pp. 295–98; von Stackelberg, Tacitus in der Romania, pp.  234–35, 263; Jacobson, ‘Thomas Gordon’s Works of Tacitus’; Volpilhac-Auger, Tacite et Montesquieu, pp. 25, 159–66; Pocock, Virtue, Commerce, and History, p. 248; Pocock, Barbarism and Religion, iii: The First Decline and Fall (2003), pp. 316–24. That Gordon’s ‘Discourses’ was one of Diderot’s favourites is stated by Herder, Briefe zur Beförderung der Humanität (Letter no. 52): ‘Ein ganzes Staatssystem mit zahlreichen Beispielen und Sprüchen aus Tacitus belegt; zwar nicht im scharfsinnigen Weltgeschmack des Machiavells, desto mehr aber, und bis zum Uebermaaße, mit aller Wärme eines ehrlichen, das Beste wollenden Mannes gezeichnet. Diderot rechnete Gordon unter seine liebsten Schriftsteller’ (‘Gordon outlines a whole state system, citing many examples from Tacitus, which is not designed with the subtlety of Machiavelli, but all the more and beyond measure with the warmth of an honest man who wishes for the best. Diderot counted Gordon among his favourite writers’). Herder discusses Gordon’s work, citing it from a German translation (Gordon, Die Ehre der Freiheit der Römer und Britten). The Italian ‘republican’ poet Vittorio Alfieri (1749–1803), the author of a treatise on tyranny (Della tirannide, 1777), admired Gordon’s work. See Burke, ‘Tacitism’, at p. 169. Gordon is quoted in the second fragment (‘On Popular Sovereignty’) of Vincenzo Cuoco’s letters to Vincenzo Russo, published as an appendix to Cuoco, Saggio storico sulla Rivoluzione Napoletana. Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766–1826), the author of the famous Letters of a Russian Traveller and of a twelvevolume History of the Russian State, may also have used Gordon’s Tacitus (on Russian classicism and on Karamzin and his mixed attitude to the French Revolution, see Kahn, ‘Readings of Imperial Rome’, at p. 760; Panofsky-Soergel, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin in Germany, pp. 70–76. 23  Jaikur Ramaswamy has suggested that Desmoulins’s knowledge of English republicanism (and thus of Gordon) arose either from his involvement in the salon of the Baron d’Holbach or from his association with the republican circle of Thomas Hollis and Catharine Macaulay. See Ramaswamy, ‘Reconstituting the “Liberty of the Ancients”’, p. 199 n. 65. See also Hammersley, French Revolutionaries and English Republicans, pp. 10–12, 153–58, 162; Monnier, ‘Républicanisme et révolution française’; Benrekassa, ‘Camille Desmoulins écrivain révolutionnaire’; Hazard, La pensée européenne, p. 181; Lesueur, A French Draft Constitution of 1792, ed. by Liljegren, pp. 37–38; Toffanin, Machiavelli e il ‘Tacitismo’, p. 208. 24  According to Collinson, History and Antiquities of the County of Somerset, iii, 153, Gordon lived for some time with Trenchard in the latter’s manor at Abbotsleigh, near Bristol, acting as his amanuensis. 25  Robbins, The Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman, p. 111.

INTRODUCTION

xxii

The sacerdotal office, according to this book, is not only not enforced or recommended in scripture, but is unnecessary, absurd and dangerous; ministers of the gospel have ever been the promoters of corruption, delusion and ignorance, and distinguished by a degree of arrogance, immorality, and a thirst after secular power, that have rendered them equally destructive of the public and private welfare of a nation. ‘One drop of priestcraft, say they, is enough to contaminate the ocean’.26

The celebrated Cato’s Letters were first published in the London Journal and the British Journal, and then gathered into four volumes in 1724. As the American historian Clinton Rossiter once noted, ‘no one can spend any time in the newspapers, library inventories, and pamphlets of colonial America without realizing that Cato’s Letters rather than Locke’s Civil Government was the most popular, quotable, esteemed source of political ideas in the colonial period’.27 In one of the most well-known letters (no. 15, ‘On Freedom of Speech’), Gordon stressed that liberty of expression was an indispensable premise for maintaining due vigilance on power: Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech: which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it he does not hurt and control the Right of another; and this is the only check which it ought to suffer, the only bounds which it ought to know.

Gordon’s political outlook, his ‘republicanism’, may be described as the conception of a secular and tolerant society subject to the rule of human law and free from providential designs, in which its governors were acknowledged to be the trustees of a pact, while its constituents were responsible for keeping vigilant watch over power. His works were consistently critical of Robert Walpole’s bribery practices and alliance with the episcopate and reflect a lifelong commitment to defending the rule of law, the balance of powers, and the rotation of representative bodies.28 It is significant that Philip Pettit, one of the leading scholars of republican theories, draws an emblematic maxim of English republicanism precisely from Gordon and Trenchard’s Cato’s Letters: ‘Liberty is, to live upon one’s own terms; slavery is, to live at the mere mercy of another’.29 26 

Murray, The Literary History of Galloway, pp. 217–18. Rossiter, Seedtime of the Republic, p. 141. 28  On ‘the tension between virtue and institutions, or virtue and laws, in the republican tradition of thought’, see Geuna, ‘Republicanism and Commercial Society in the Scottish Enlightenment’. As Geuna aptly recalls, the emphasis on the rule of law is not specific to the republican tradition: ‘It was a theme present in both the Aristotelian and the natural law traditions, and also in those tendencies which we would today call constitutionalist’. 29  Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, p. 33. 27 

INTRODUCTION

xxiii

Further proof of Gordon’s versatility and prolific output is his unfinished draft of a History of England, now preserved in the British Library Manuscript Collections (Add. MS 20780). The manuscript was donated to the Library in May 1855 by the naturalist and keen phrenologist, Sir Walter Calverley Trevelyan, sixth Baronet of Nettlecombe. Calverley was a descendant of Julia Blackett, the elder sister of Gordon’s second wife, as is made clear by a family tree prepared by the donator and attached to the manuscript together with some notes. 30 Although the protagonists of the historiographic debate about the ‘ancient English Constitution’ are not openly mentioned in Gordon’s History, there seems to have been a clear intent to use historical records to validate a theory of government based on a contractual relationship between ruler and ruled, and in this way to react both to the persistent Jacobite threat and to the even more damaging alliance between the ministry and the Anglican episcopate. In 1918, J. M. Bullock became the first person to attempt a ‘biographical bibliography’ of Thomas Gordon, whose name crops up only sporadically in specialist literature about deism, ‘red’ Tacitism,31 and republicanism. He complained that although most scholars of eighteenth-century political thought were familiar with the name of Thomas Gordon — the co-author of the Independent Whig and Cato’s Letters, the translator of Tacitus and, unfortunately, also the beneficiary of a minor sinecure conferred on him by Walpole’s government — very few seemed to be aware of the prolific output and popularity of this obscure Scottish anticlerical pamphleteer, who wrote tirelessly for over thirty years and whose works circulated for a long time in the form of re-editions, anthologies, transla-

30 

Gordon, History of England, fol. 1. See also Trevelyan, ‘T. Gordon’s History of England’. In the 1920s Giuseppe Toffanin labelled disguised republicanism as ‘Tacitismo rosso’ as opposed to ‘Tacitismo nero’, with the latter meaning disguised Machiavellianism (Toffanin, Machiavelli e il ‘Tacitismo’). Peter Burke suggested in 1969 that the distinction should be further articulated to include the ‘pink Tacitists, supporters of limited monarchy in an age of absolutism’. See Burke, ‘Tacitism’, p. 163 and Burke, ‘Tacitism, Scepticism, and Reason of State’; Weinbrot, ‘Some Uses of Tacitism in Eighteenth-Century Britain’, pp. 170–71. J. A. W. Gunn, who depicts the mature Gordon as a tame pensioner, admits that ‘it was difficult to recruit Tacitus to Walpole’s cause, and Gordon did not really try, but there was an undoubted reluctance to concede such a popular author to the Opposition’ (Gunn, Beyond Liberty and Property, p. 23). For more on early modern interpretations of Tacitean prudence (equated either with effective government or with individual survival attained by avoiding both abruptam contumaciam and deforme obsequium), see also La Penna, ‘Vivere sotto i tiranni’; Momigliano, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, Chapter 5, ‘Tacitus and the Tacitist Tradition’ (pp. 109–31); and the refreshing study of Abraham-Nicolas Amelot de La Houssaye by Soll, Publishing the Prince. 31 

xxiv

INTRODUCTION

tions, extracts, adaptations, and citations.32 Since then, as we will see, many eminent scholars have contributed significantly, and from different viewpoints, to a careful examination of Gordon’s best-known works and their reception, and have contextualized them in a plausible fashion. Nonetheless, I believe that Bullock’s observation still has a certain validity today. This study makes no claim to offer an exhaustive survey of Gordon’s work, but simply sets out to produce a fuller profile of him, to present for the first time an annotated edition of his unfinished and unpublished History of England, and to investigate his specific and controversial contribution as a political theorist and, finally, as a historian. Furthermore, as far as is known, no examination of Gordon’s Sinophilia has hitherto been undertaken. As J. G. A. Pocock noted on the topic per litteras, ‘what we have from Gordon is China as it appears to an extreme deist’. Gordon was all at once imbued with the Jesuits’ pervasive Confuciophilia and Bayle’s overturning of their (mis-)understanding of ancient Chinese thought (in other words, his denial that ancient Confucians ever knew any spiritual substance separate from matter). Above all, Gordon’s ‘sensible Chinese’ is drawn in as a rhetorical tool to voice bitter judgements on both Catholic and Protestant inconsistencies. Accordingly, he expressed the hope that the Christian bigots would convert into ‘rational and sober Chineses’.33

32 

Bullock, ‘Thomas Gordon, the “Independent Whig”’. See also Séguin, A Bibliography of Thomas Gordon. 33  Gordon, An Examination of the Facts and Reasonings in the Lord Bishop of Chichester’s Sermon (first published in 1732; republished in the third volume of the 1735 sixth edition of The Independent Whig), p. 61. J. G. A. Pocock, besides his many perceptive comments about Cato’s Letters and Gordon’s ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, has also dealt extensively with early modern Western perceptions of China, chiefly in volume iv of his breathtaking Barbarism and Religion (see, in particular, Chapters 6 and 7), but also at various points in volumes iii and v. Pocock (personal correspondence with the author of this volume) stresses the crucial importance of William Warburton (1698–1779) and his Divine Legation of Moses (1737–41), in which ‘he [Warburton] contends that all non-revealed religions that worship sociability and nothing else are ultimately pantheistic. This is linked with the view that only Christians, and perhaps Jews, believe in creation ex nihilo. In all other systems God and matter are coequal and perhaps interdependent, so that there’s no difference between Chinese philosophy and Spinozism’. On Warburton see also Sorkin, The Religious Enlightenment, Chapter 1, pp. 22–65.

Part I Thomas Gordon (c. 1691–1750)

Chapter I

Thomas Gordon (c. 1691–1750): An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

U

nfortunately, although Gordon liberally dispensed comments about current political affairs, he gave away little about his life and upbringing. One thing that is known for certain is that he was of Scottish origin. The anonymous author of The Characters of Two Independent Whigs (1720) warns us that he was ‘by birth a Scot and by character an Irishman’. In a letter dated Beaconsfield, 8 December 1793, Edmund Burke wrote to Arthur Murphy thanking him for the free copy of Murphy’s four-volume translation of the works of Tacitus. In doing so he emphasized the stylistic superiority of Murphy’s translation to the last such undertaking, produced by Gordon over sixty years earlier: It is clear to me that he did not understand the language from which he ventured to translate; and that he had formed a very whimsical idea of excellence with regard to ours. His work is wholly remote from the genius of the tongue, in its purity, or in any of its jargons. It is not English, nor Irish, nor even his native Scotch. It is not fish, nor flesh, nor good red herring.1

In his Literary History of Galloway (1822), Thomas Murray agreed with Chalmers (Biographical Dictionary) that Gordon was a native of the Stewartry 1 

Burke, The Correspondence, ed. by Marshall and Woods, vii, 501. See also The Critical Review, June 1793, 121–22.

4 Chapter I

of Kirkcudbright, a county in south-western Scotland. Murray added that of the two parishes in which he might have been born, Balmaclellan and Kells, the latter seemed the more plausible, because ‘his father, the representative of an ancient family descended from the Gordons of Kenmure, was proprietor of Gairloch, in that parish’.2 For his part, Bullock revealed that ‘no family of the house of Gordon was anxious to claim kin with him, because the Gordons as a race have never greatly interested themselves in ideas — and least of all in radical ideas; so that beyond a note in a letter written by Sir Alexander Gordon of Culvennan to the effect that Gordon’s brother was a surgeon in Glasgow, we are quite in the dark’.3 His date of birth is also uncertain. Some recent studies suggest that it was in 1684,4 while others place it, with a greater degree of likelihood, in 1691 or 1692. Gordon himself, in volume one of The Humourist, first printed in 1720, claims to be in ‘the thirtieth year of [his] age’ (p. 165). ‘If it is of himself that he is speaking as being 29 years old, we see that he was born in 1691. Is there no register to prove that?’5 Consultation of the surviving birth and baptism registers (1553– 1854) for around nine hundred Church of Scotland parishes (now housed in the General Register Office for Scotland in Edinburgh) reveals the baptism of just one Thomas Gordon, the son of John, in the county of Kirkcudbright between 1680 and 1700. This took place on 25 August 1700 in the parish of Troqueer.6 It would be reasonable to suppose that Gordon studied at a Scottish university. Chalmers suggests St Andrews or Aberdeen. In 1713 a Thomas Gordon was 2 

Murray, The Literary History of Galloway, pp. 179 –83. Bullock, ‘Thomas Gordon, the “Independent Whig”’, p. 599. 4  See, for example, Vincitorio, ‘Edmund Burke and Charles Lucas’, which also contains an implausible conjecture that Gordon was the author of A Free Briton’s Advice to the Free Citizens of Dublin (four treatises defending the Irish nationalist Charles Lucas). Cf. Murphy, ‘Burke and Lucas’, p. 155. 5  Dodgson, ‘Thomas Gordon: The Date of his Birth’. The same year, further minor details or conjectures on Gordon’s life and writings were provided in a series of letters by Dodgson, Bullock, George Murray, and Thomas Fraser to the Kirkcudbrightshire Advertiser (16, 23 February; 2, 9 March; 13, 20 April; 4, 11, 25 May; 8, 15 June; 27 July). A further note by Dodgson appeared in the Royal Cornwall Gazette on 17 May 1917. According to the bookseller John Whiston, who bought Gordon’s library, ‘he died about the year 1752 or 3, aged about sixty’ (see Gordon, History of England, fol. 1; Nichols, Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, i, 709). 6  Edinburgh, Nat. Records of Scotland, Old Parish Registers, Births and Baptisms. The Old Parish Register indexes are compiled from the 3500 surviving registers of the established Church, which recorded births and baptisms, banns and marriages, and deaths and burials up to 1854. Since their formal transfer from the Church under the 1854 Act, most of the registers have been held by the GROS in Edinburgh. 3 

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

5

in truth at King’s College. Moreover, on 29 December 1716, a Thomas Gordon submitted his law thesis (Disputatio juridica, ad Tit. 4, Lib. I. ff. De in integrum restitutionibus), printed in Edinburgh ‘in aedibus Tho. Ruddimanni’ and dedicated to George Gordon, the first Earl of Aberdeen, and his son William. The brief entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (by Leslie Stephen, rev. Emma Major) states that he was a barrister at the Scottish Bar in 1716. However, there is no definite proof that this was our author. On the contrary, an autographed letter to George Duckett,7 dated in London in January 1719, reveals that he had lived ‘almost five years’ in Amesbury, Wiltshire, in south-west England, where ‘[he was] taken for a squire’ because he wore ‘a laced hat and a sword’.8 Rumour had it that in those years he had secretly been in the service of Robert Harley, the Earl of Oxford, who was held in the Tower of London on charges of high treason before finally being cleared and released in July 1717. Only then did Gordon again become a ‘visible man’.9 However, an anonymous manuscript dated 4 July 1713 and attributed to Gordon in the catalogue of the Osborn EighteenthCentury Bound Manuscripts section of the Beinecke Library in Yale University, seems, insofar as it contains accounts suggesting that Oxford was a secret Jacobite, to be the outline of a Whig attack on the Tory ministry.10 At any rate, whatever his early political affiliations may have been, and for which he would later be on the receiving end of slanderous accusations, by 1718 he had established himself in London, making a living, according to all accounts, by teaching languages. He married twice, the second time to Trenchard’s widow,11 and had three children: Thomas (barrister-at-law, Middle Temple), William, and Patty.12 He seems to have 7 

Duckett (d. 1732) was an author, M.P., and Commissioner of Excise, who gained some fame with an attack on Pope’s Iliad. 8  BL, MS Addit. 36772, fol. 202r. 9  Bullock, ‘Thomas Gordon, the “Independent Whig”’, p. 601. 10  New Haven, Beinecke Libr., Osborn Coll., Osborn Shelves MS C 502. 11  We do not know the name of his first wife nor when he married Anne Trenchard. He seems to have been a widower in 1719, for, in Gordon, The Character of an Independent Whig, published that year, he speaks of ‘having neither wife nor daughter of my own’ (p. 23). 12  Bullock, ‘Thomas Gordon, the “Independent Whig”’, pp. 748–49. Bullock, who also refers to a holograph will left by Thomas Gordon, aptly observes that ‘from the fact that there is no mention in Mrs. Gordon’s will of any of these children, or even of anybody called Gordon, one may conclude either that none of them was hers, or that all of them predeceased her’. According to John Whiston, Gordon ‘married late in life, I think Mr. Trenchard’s widow, or her sister, I am not sure which; and think he left no children by her, I never heard of any’ (Nichols, Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, i, 709).

6 Chapter I

lived at Hornsey.13 In the space of a few years, Gordon apparently took on the onerous intellectual task of maintaining a constant watch over power, which he pursued from within the variegated and quarrelsome Whig arena. He worked as a tireless pamphleteer, translator of classics, and historian until his death, which apparently took place in Upper Brook Street, London, on 28 July 1750.14 Gordon’s literary debut in 1718 was a short satirical essay entitled A Dedication to a great man concerning dedications, discovering amongst other wonderful secrets what will be the present posture of affairs a thousand years hence. The pamphlet, which wittily explores the relationship between authors and the dedicatees of their works, contains an implicit denunciation — something which was to recur constantly in Gordon’s works — of the interdependence between the flattery of intellectuals and the arrogance and impunity of the powerful: ‘This practice being general, it is a very easy matter to guess, by the size of the panegyrick, how wealthy the Patron may be, or how hungry the Author; if it exceeds three pages […] the Writer has fasted three days. […] We must not therefore judge of the High and Mighty, as they are describ’d in the frontispiece of books and poems. Your dedicators are a sort of Intellectual Taylors, that cut out cloaths for a great man’s mind without ever taking measure of it’ (p. 4). An early and significant link should also be noted here: the publisher of the pamphlet, which ran to seven editions in the space of just a few months, was James Roberts, notoriously close to the Whig printers (the Baldwins and the Darbys) and, as will become clear, an active populariser of Protestant and political dissent.15 13  His son Thomas is described in 1740 as the ‘son and heir of Thomas Gordon of Hornsey in the County of Middlesex’ (Bullock, ‘Thomas Gordon, the “Independent Whig”’, p. 748). 14  See Nichols, Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, i, 709, and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. by Matthew and Harrison. 15  James Roberts (c. 1668–1754) was the son of Robert Roberts, a printer, and possibly a descendant of the James Roberts who printed several Shakespeare quartos. Roberts was made a Freeman of the Stationers’ Company by patrimony on 7 November 1692, having been bound to his father (Records of the Stationers’ Company: Freemen’s Register Beginning 1605 to 1703); he was also admitted to the Livery on the same date (Call of the Livery from 1606 to 1764). ‘His printing ranks with the finest of his age. […] As a publisher, Roberts issued first editions for Pope, Fielding, Steele, Defoe, Prior, Swift, Young, Congreve, Addison, Lord Hervey, and Dr Johnson. In addition, he was a copious publisher of pamphlets, with a leaning towards unorthodox ones. […] Roberts published and printed for Mandeville (according to the title-page) all the separate editions of Part II of the Fable, the 1720 Free Thoughts, the Executions at Tyburn, and the Letter to Dion, and published the 1714 editions of the Fable and the Mischiefs that ought justly to be apprehended from a Whig-Government (both editions)’. See Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees or Private Vices, Publick Benefits, ii, ‘The Preface’; Plomer, ‘Roberts ( James)’; Treadwell, ‘London

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

7

In the same period, for ‘a weekly stipend’ paid by a bookseller, Gordon wrote a series of light-hearted articles for an undemanding readership, dealing with a disparate range of themes, not the least important of which was love — ‘being a thing which all People feel, most People talk of, and but few understand’ — and adulation (‘No tyrant could ever have plagu’d the world, had it not been for these supple slaves, who kept him in countenance, and sanctify’d all his cruelties, either by approving them or executing them’). These short essays were then gathered together and published in 1720 in a volume entitled The Humourist. A second volume was added later, and the works were subsequently republished in two volumes in 1724 and 1725.16 The collection was introduced by an unusual dedication To the Man in the Moon, a satirical treatment of the irrational behaviour of human society associated with a noble tradition of literary invention and satire that dates back to Plutarch, Lucian, and Ariosto. In more recent times various authors had resorted to this narrative device. Fantastic accounts of moon travels skilfully flitted between ‘invention’ and ‘judgment’, thereby making it possible to introduce controversial astronomical and theological notions, and to compare ‘the utopian moon with the notso-utopian earth’. Johannes Kepler’s Somnium sive opus posthumum de astronomia lunaris had been published in 1634. Four years later, John Wilkins, in The Discovery of a World in the Moone, had sustained that the idea of an inhabited moon ‘doth not contradict any principle of reason or faith’. In the same year the Bishop of Hereford, Francis Goodwin, had anonymously published The Man in the Moone, the well-known account of the imaginary journey of Domingo Gonsales, a Spanish merchant who travelled to the moon hauled by a flock of wild geese. When he got there he met a peaceful population ‘intuitively receptive to Christianity’. Discussion in Stuart England about whether the Moon was inhabited was encouraged by travel literature and Renaissance geography. Moreover, ‘the findings and theories of the new astronomy reinvigorated ancient and medieval notions of the plurality of worlds’.17 Gordon made explicit reference to Gonsales’s journey, ‘in imitation of whom, ’tis believ’d that Cardinal Alberoni, after he had conquer’d all Europe by Plots and Proclamations, intended to have invaded you with a bloody Army of Priests and Irish Catholicks’ (p. v). The Humourist Printers and Printing Houses’, pp. 43–44, and Treadwell, ‘London Trade Publishers 1675– 1750’, pp. 117–18. 16  In the second volume of The Humourist Gordon largely reused unsigned letters from St James Journal and Pasquin, pro-ministry papers set up respectively in May and November 1722. 17  Hutton, ‘“The Man in the Moone”’. See also Rothman, ‘Lunacy, Thomas Gordon, and the Man in the Moon’.

8 Chapter I

is addressed to the Man on the Moon in the hope that he will carry a plea to his good Lady, so that she might interrupt the distemper of ‘lunacy’ upon self-serving and warlike government officials (‘the martial Inhabitants of this Earth’), fraudulent businessmen, and fanatical and censorious preachers: We are always going round the world, in quest of adventures and battles, and will go round it again for more, in defiance of the expence and the danger. […] It is only this, to perswade us Europeans, in all love, that those who have deceiv’d us a hundred and fifty times already, may not be credited by us above a dozen times more. […] And Oh, Sir! That you had with-held the malignity of the Moon from the sacred Servants of the Altar in many good Catholick Countries! […] Its first symptoms shew’d themselves in a strange aversion of the sick person to printed books and pamphlets (pp. xiii, xvii–xviii, xxi–xxii).

In 1731 a pro-government newspaper (Hyp-Doctor, no. 39) would deride the claims of the opposition, overturning the terms of the lunar utopia: ‘A region most proper for them and their projects [is] Utopia, the World of the Moon, the Isles of Pines, or Terra Incog.’ 2. By the time the first edition of The Humourist was published, Gordon had already expressed himself on much more important themes, intervening with a series of pamphlets (of which at least three were published and reprinted several times by Roberts) in the controversy sparked by the Bishop of Bangor, Benjamin Hoadly, ‘the best Defender of the Liberties of England’. 18 A skilled controversialist, Hoadly had been one of the most fervid supporters of the legitimacy of a Protestant succession. He had also advocated recognition of full citizenship to all the Reformed minorities. A satirical etching depicts him in his study, intent on composing an invective against the obscurantist clergy. Looming behind him are packed bookshelves containing volumes by the likes of Locke, Sidney, Tindal, Toland, Hobbes, Harrington, Milton, and Baxter.19 In 1709 Hoadly had reacted to the republication of Filmer’s Patriarcha in Rehearsal (the periodical edited by Charles Leslie), arguing, in The Original and Institution of Civil Government (1709), that the condition of men after the Flood depicted in Genesis excluded the existence of social hierarchies. This therefore contradicted Filmer’s theory of the continuous transmission of the power of the sword from God to Adam and 18 

Gordon, The Character of an Independent Whig, p. 26. Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires, ii: 1689–1733, pp. 282–83. On Hoadly, see Sykes, ‘Benjamin Hoadley’; Gibson, Enlightenment Prelate: Benjamin Hoadly; Sanna, ‘How Heterodox was Benjamin Hoadly?’. 19 

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

9

all the way down to the ruling dynasties of the time. On the contrary, Hoadly explained, political society ensued from a pact amongst equals, considered necessary for the self-preservation and promotion of the common good. On 31 March 1717, in the presence of George I, Hoadly preached the sermon based on John 18. 36 that sparked the famous controversy. He sustained that a literal interpretation of the Scriptures acknowledged Christ to be the sole sovereign of a spiritual kingdom and did not therefore legitimate the establishment of earthly hierarchies that claimed a role as Vicar in administering that kingdom. Everyone was equal before Christ: ‘[Christians should] trust no mortal with the absolute direction of their consciences, the pardon of their sins, or the determining of their interest in God’s favour; [and should not] set up to themselves the idol of an unintelligible authority, both in belief and worship and practice, in words under Jesus Christ, but in deed and in truth over him’.20 The explosive implications of Hoadly’s assertions immediately laid him open to the threat of ecclesiastical sanctions. Forced to walk on crutches since he had almost died of smallpox in his childhood, his deformed appearance was ferociously derided. It was George I himself who came to his rescue, and the king was even in favour of suppressing the synod of Canterbury (the Convocation), which was not to be convened again until 1852. Gordon decided to intervene in the controversy sparked by the Bishop of Bangor, and in December 1718 (but with a 1719 imprint) he published A Modest Apology for Parson Alberoni, a violent satire against the ‘indelible character’ of the clergy. Cardinal Alberoni’s blatant violation of the terms of the Peace of Utrecht and his encouragement of the ambitions of the Pretender had earned him the hostility and contempt of the Whigs. It was a simple task for Gordon to depict him as the quintessentially ambitious and avid prelate (‘the Lord’s ReceiverGeneral, for he never comes but to take money’). The Cardinal, he wrote, ‘has as good a right as any other Priest or Vicar whatsoever to act as becomes his order, by nourishing war and desolation’. The diffidence and hostility of the clergy were directed above all towards men of culture. ‘Learning and Eyes in the Laity are the greatest causes of the contempt of the Clergy. […] A man cannot grow eminent for his knowledge and writings, but forthwith the Ambassadors [of God] grow fearful of him, and cry Atheist at him. […] Mr. Lock, I grant, gave them sufficient cause to abuse him, by his speaking well of human Understanding, and explaining the Scriptures’.21 Just a few weeks later, as announced in a footnote to the Modest Apology, Gordon published a second pamphlet, An Apology for the Danger of the 20  21 

Hoadly, The Nature of the Kingdom. Gordon, A Modest Apology, pp. 14–20, 35.

10 Chapter I

Church, with the evident intent to irritate the Anglican hierarchy. He listed a fictitious catalogue of derisory titles ‘to be publish’d […] for the benefit of our Mother-Church, and her hopeful boys, the Parsons’. They included The Modern Paradox; or a Demonstration that Ungodliness may be orthodox, and a good Life damnable; The Truth of Contradiction; or Church-Arithmetick, demonstrating, That three is one, and one is three; The Unreasonableness of understanding the Scripture. He then went on to express his unequivocal appreciation and firm support for Hoadly: ‘The Bishop of Bangor is the occasion of no small terror to the Church […] marching, as he does, at the Head of Truth, Reason, Scripture and Sincerity, and the like fanatical fellows, who have the heresy and impudence to espouse an interest diametrically opposite to that of the Convocation’.22 The Archbishop of Canterbury, William Wake, had been severe in his judgement of Hoadly. Wake had for some time been trying to get a transnational project off the ground for a union of the Protestant Churches and was supported, amongst others, by the theologian Samuel Werenfels from Basle and by JeanFrédéric Ostervald in Berne and Jean-Alphonse Turrettini in Geneva. Wake’s aspiration was to create a single, large, reformed episcopal Church. The ideas expounded by the Bishop of Bangor seemed to him to undermine his ambitious project at the roots, as he complained with considerable alarm in a letter to Turrettini in February 1718: ‘It has fallen out that a set of Latitudinarian writers (who call themselves freethinkers) have made it their business for some time past to write down all confessions of faith, all subscriptions of any articles of religion whatsoever, as contrary to that subjection we owe to Christ as our king’.23 A similarly tendentious representation of religious dissent in England, which many people attributed to Wake, had found its way into an Oratio historica de Beneficiis in Ecclesiam Tigurinam collatiis published in Switzerland. Gordon reacted indignantly, publishing A Letter to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury proving that His Grace cannot be the author of the Letter. The arguments (rather of course than the title) expressed in the pamphlet reveal the polemical intent of its author: ‘All Religion does infer Conscience and voluntary Choice, and he, who has not these for his motives to devotion, but stupidly follows the uncertain Authority of Names and Persons, may indeed be a very good Conformist, and pay great reverence to the Clergy; but will never bring along with him an acceptable Worship to God or Benefit to his own Soul’ (p. 19). 22 

Gordon, The Apology for the Danger of the Church, p. 20. Cited in Sykes, William Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, ii, 150. See also Pitassi, De l’orthodoxie aux Lumières. 23 

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

11

In an unpublished text of that period, Upon Persecution and the Natural Ill Tendency of Power in the Clergy,24 Gordon set out to present ‘clerical power’ as the most ‘compleat and tyrannical of all others’, describing the trial and execution, in 1417, of the Lollard Sir John Oldcastle, commonly known as Lord Cobham. Oldcastle had advocated the use of reason in religious matters and had denounced the superstitions of the clergy ‘as a senseless repetition of what any impostor frames and a stupid acquiescence in unintelligible sounds’. What was taking shape in the young Gordon was, then, not just a propensity to make fun of the clergy but a firm and lasting commitment to a republican political programme based on the need to guarantee, at one and the same time, individual consciences (and choices) and government institutions. Both were regarded as free and legitimate, provided they did not bow to an authority that was not bound by positive law and was therefore potentially arbitrary. It is not surprising that the decidedly Whiggish style and tone of Gordon’s pamphlets attracted the attention of John Trenchard and ‘brought the two men together as coauthors’. Following the Treaty of Ryswick in 1697, Trenchard had written An Argument Shewing that a Standing Army is Inconsistent with a Free Government, beginning, together with Walter Moyle, ‘an eventually successful paper war’ against the permanent army of William III.25 In the pursuit of essentially republican or commonwealth aims that went well beyond the revolution of 1688, Moyle, ‘the Coryphaeus of the Whigs’, consorted with a wide circle that also attracted independent and Tory support. Prominent associates included Lord Ashley, Andrew Fletcher, Robert Molesworth, Charles Montagu, John Toland, and Trenchard, who all essentially agreed on the need to limit the influence of the Anglican Church and to take a broadly tolerant approach to Protestant Dissenters. ‘Provided a man loves Liberty and his Country, what is it to the Commonwealth whether he sings his prayers or says them?’, wrote Gordon in The Character of an Independent Whig (1719). ‘Our Whig is for an unlimited Toleration of all Dissenters whatsoever, who own the Laws and our Civil Form of Government. As to their religious Opinions, they are justified in them by Sincerity. […] In Matters of Conscience, he who does his best does well, though he is mistaken’ (p. 8). And in Priestianity: or a view of the 24 

BL, MS Addit. 21153. In his ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’ (1728), Gordon states, that ‘Great Britain has preserved it’s [sic] liberties so long, because it has preserved itself from great standing armies; which, where-ever they are strong enough to master their Country, will certainly first or last master it’. See Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, p. 347. Significantly, Gordon also recalls that Trenchard had approved his design of translating Tacitus ‘with his usual zeal for every thing which favoured public Liberty’ (p. 183). 25 

12 Chapter I

disparity between the Apostles and the modern inferior clergy, which was written around about the same time, he asked his readers: ‘Is not the liberty of the mind preferable to the liberty of the body?’ (p. xiv).26 3. Gordon’s commitment to measures designed to counter the marginalization of the Reformed minorities took place in the context of the programme of reforms drawn up in those years by the Sunderland/Stanhope ministry, the most ambitious goals of which included the reform of the universities, the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts (according to which only members of the Church of England were allowed to hold any office of public trust), the passing of the Peerage Bill, and the repeal of the Occasional Conformity and Schism Acts (whose purpose had been to prevent Catholics and Dissenters respectively from taking occasional communion in the Church of England in order to become eligible for public office and from running their own denominational schools). Only the last of these goals had been achieved by 1719.27 It should be emphasized that the programme of reforms was motivated by questions of principle and not just by political contingency. John Toland broadened the scope of this impulse by publishing The State Anatomy of Great Britain in 1717, in which he too called for the adoption of reforms in the Church, the constitution, and the universities, and for the repeal of the Test Act. Sunderland himself, as Secretary of State for the South from 1706 to 1710, took up the Dissenters’ cause at court, protected them during the ‘Sacheverell crisis’, and encouraged Palatine immigration to England. Naturally, there were questions of political calculation as well. Almost immediately after the arrival of the new king in September 1714, factions whose origins dated back to the reign of Queen Anne began to emerge within the Whig ministry. By the beginning of 1717, the two main factions had become irreconcilable, and Sunderland and Stanhope had triumphed over Townshend and Walpole. The latter, guilty of having opposed George I’s military policy in the Baltic and having supported the Prince of Wales (who was 26  See also Gordon, History of England, fols 337v, 427r-v: ‘Persecutors are a sort of infamous Conquerors, such as would subdue or banish Conscience; a much more guilty Task than that of subduing the Persons and even taking away the Lives of men. […] Whoever thinks his own Faith the safest, will be apt to think it kindness and merit to force others into it, if he cannot persuade them’. 27  ‘The pro-dissenter reforms were designed to strengthen the ministry’s position in the Commons by gaining dissenter support at elections, while the Peerage Bill would probably have enabled the ministry (and its like-minded successors) to control the Lords for at least a generation’ ( Jones, ‘The “Reforming” Sunderland/Stanhope Ministry’, at p. 61).

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

13

not on good terms with the king), left the government. In the summer of 1717, Townshend and Walpole joined a temporary alliance with the ‘Wales party’ and the Tories and succeeded in blocking the impeachment of the Earl of Oxford. The need to prevent the coalescing of this block of anti-government forces prompted Sunderland and Stanhope to exercise broader control over Parliament. Between 1717 and 1720 the Whig dissidents in both Houses of Parliament were ready to co-operate with the Tories to uphold the religious settlement as it stood at Queen’s Anne’s death in August 1714. Sunderland’s death in April 1722, and Walpole’s emergence as prime Minister, marked the culmination of Whig religious conservatism.28

As will become clear, the strategic accommodation between Walpole and Bishop Gibson was to be decisive in this respect. It is also important to stress at this point that the wide divergences with regard to relations between civil and ecclesiastic institutions and issues of religious and confessional liberty make it difficult to accept uncritically the widespread representation of Gordon as a hack writer, inclined, after Trenchard’s death, to sell his services to Walpole. Rather, Gordon demanded and demonstrated independence in judging government decisions for what they were worth and remained firm in his defence of the primacy of the law, the balance of powers, and the rotation of representative bodies: Our Whig scorns all implicite faith in the State, as well as the Church. The authority of Names is nothing to him; […] [he] hates a knave of his own Party, as much as despises a fool of another. […] He claims a right of examining all publick measures, and, if they deserve it, of censuring them (Character of an Independent Whig, p. 3).

In fact, Gordon does not seem to have adhered to the position of those who supported the introduction of the Peerage Bill, which, in the reconstruction offered by Justin Champion (one of the few to examine Gordon’s minor works), should be viewed ‘within a context of a persisting commonwealth tradition’, even though the republicanism of Toland — a key figure in this interpretation — stems from a sweetening of that tradition and appears to be fairly ‘elite and hierarchical’.29 28 

Townend, ‘Religious Radicalism and Conservatism’, p. 40. See also Champion, ‘“Anglia Libera”: Commonwealth Politics’; Targett, ‘Government and Ideology’. 29  As Champion notes, ‘Toland’s republicanism was not radical in either social or institutional ambition. His writings (drawing from Sidney’s work) indicate a preference for the rule of an aristocracy of virtue: he did his best to mingle with such people. […] Although he loudly proclaimed the sovereignty of reason, and indeed of the people, he was more than a simple rationalist, and certainly no democrat’ (Champion, Republican Learning, pp. 106–07, 248–51).

14 Chapter I

The creation of new peers, during the reign of Queen Anne, to ensure the Peace of Utrecht was approved in the House of Lords had alarmed the Whigs. ‘[It was] the deadliest blow which was ever struck at the vitals of Parliament’, wrote Toland. The Peerage Bill, introduced in the Lords on 28 February 1719, stated that the number of peers ‘should not be enlarged beyond six above the present number, which upon the failure of male issue might be supplied by new creations’, and that the sixteen elected Scottish peers were to be replaced by twenty-five hereditary lords, thereby establishing a maximum number of two hundred and nine peers. Supporters of this measure underlined the importance, in terms of constitutional balance, of a ‘free nobility’, of a more clear-cut separation between the two Houses and of the limited prerogatives of the Crown. Those who (successfully) opposed the bill, amongst whom the most persuasive figure proved to be Walpole (The Thoughts of a Member of the Lower House, 1719), pointed out that the measure might pave the way for ‘the worst sort of oligarchy […] a fixed independent body, not to be called to an account like a ministry, nor to be dissolved or changed like a house of Commons’. Gordon expressed his reservations about the Peerage Bill, which was effectively an oligarchic lock-out, on a number of occasions. It was, he wrote, ‘granted as a favour to the Commons of England, by cutting off the Commons of England from all right to peerage’ (Cato’s Letters, no. 9, 31 December 1720). In the same year, in Creed of an Independent Whig, he included amongst his credenda: that ‘the Protestant Religion is the most pure and undefiled of any Religion in the Universe; nevertheless it may admit of emendations’; that ‘the Clergy exercise a jurisdiction which Christ and his Apostles never did, or ever gave them authority so to do’; and, surprisingly, that ‘Aristocracy is inconsistent with the Constitution of Great Britain’ (pp. 9, 11, 20). And in 1722, in A Compleat History of the Late Septennial Parliament (pp. vii, 36), published on the eve of ‘one of the most hotly contested’ general elections of the eighteenth century, and in a brief treatise on the prerogatives of Parliament written in 1730 (which bore the motto Pro Rege saepe, Pro Republica semper on the frontispiece), he criticized both the passing of the Septennial Act in 1715, because ‘allowing a Parliament to continue seven years before submitting itself to an election’ contravened the authentically republican principle of the ‘frequency of parliaments, the strongest pillar of the subject’s liberty’, and also other measures ‘as were never thought of before, viz. the Peerage bill’.30 30 

Gordon, The True Crisis, p. 38. The Septennial Act had however been pushed through thanks to backing from prominent ‘commonwealthmen’, such as Molesworth, Toland, Trenchard, ‘in the hope that by allowing the Whig administration time to implement legislation opposed by High Church Tories, a greater proportion of the nation would enjoy the religious

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

15

Gordon and Trenchard appear to have met for the first time at the Grecian Coffee House in Devereux Court, London, ‘[that] glorious club of heroes whose name will be held in honour by all who abhor Christianity’. One of its most assiduous clients was Anthony Collins, the author of the successful Discourse of Free-Thinking (1713), in which he claimed that freedom of thought was an essential human right (‘If we have a right to know any truth, we have then a right to think freely’).31 There are no surviving copies of the first text that Gordon and Trenchard produced together, a short treatise entitled The Independent Whig, and it is possible that it never even existed. Their next work, Considerations Offered upon the Approaching Peace […] being the Second Part of the Independent Whig (a demand that the ministry not relinquish Gibraltar to Spain as part of a general European peace settlement), contains a reference suggesting that it (the first part) was published abroad around the time when the Peerage Bill was being discussed (‘[whose] secrete motives for’ and the ‘hopeful ends […] to have been served by, I do not pretend to explain, nor indeed, for the ease of my own mind, do I care to guess’). However, another pamphlet, The Character of an Independent Whig — of considerable importance because it expresses reservations about permanent armies and a profound aversion to war — includes the promise of a sequel, which perhaps took the form of the Considerations. The latter also announced that the Independent Whig would appear regularly ‘in a Half Sheet’ every Wednesday as from 20 January 1720. 4. Although short-lived (a little under a year), as many as seven English and two American editions of this weekly publication were to appear in the space of thirty-five years, plus a French translation by the Baron d’Holbach, published in Amsterdam with false printing details.32 The 1732 two-volume duodecimo and civil liberties which were then the preserve of members of the established Church’ (Mitchell, ‘The Character of an Independent Whig’, pp. 113–15). See also Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment, p. 473. 31  Witty, The First Principles of Modern Deism Confuted, p. xvi; Collins, A Discourse of FreeThinking, p. 6. 32  Holbach, L’Esprit du clergé, ou le Christianisme primitif. The book, actually based on the fifth edition, was partially rewritten by the Baron d’Holbach and then touched up by Naigeon, who according to a manuscript note by his brother, ‘atheised it as much as possible’. Translations of two further texts, Gordon, The Apology for the Danger of the Church and Gordon, The Creed of an Independent Whig, appeared in 1767 in De l’imposture sacerdotale, ou recueil de pièces sur le clergé (republished in 1772 under the title of De la Monstruosité pontificale) respectively as Des Dangers de l’Eglise and Le Symbole d’un Laïque, ‘une des sources capitales de la libre pensée

16 Chapter I

edition (the fifth) included a new letter, a long epitaph for Trenchard, who had died from kidney failure on 16 December 1723, a previously unpublished Letter to a Gentleman in Edinburgh, and The Craftsmen, a pamphlet reprinted various times subsequent to its first appearance in 1720. The sixth edition of the Independent Whig, which appeared in 1735, saw the addition of a third volume consisting of twenty-one new articles and three pamphlets that had already been published separately, including A Sermon Preached before the Learned Society of Lincoln’s Inn on January 30. 1732 […] by a Layman; the aim of the Sermon was ‘to defend the Right of every Man to private judgement and opinion, to shew the absurdity and wickedness of setting up authority against conscience, and to manifest the pernicious tendency and effects of power and immoderate wealth in the Clergy’. The next three-volume edition, published in 1743, was followed in 1747 by a fourth volume dedicated to Lord Paget, which contained thirty-two essays ‘all written, some of them published, during the late Rebellion’ (that is, the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion). This volume was republished, without the dedication, in Dublin the following year (A Collection of Papers), while a selection of his articles were published in Manchester as part of an undated miscellany entitled Essays against Popery, Slavery and Arbitrary Power: The articles by Gordon (‘a Gentleman who has been long remarkable for a fine Genius, a great Scholar, and a warm Zeal against Ecclesiastical and Civil Tyranny’) can be recognized by the pseudonym ‘Montanus’.33 The weekly half-sheet, whose topics were almost exclusively religious and had a prevalently deistic tone, naturally aroused a flood of reactions, but the opposition of the ecclesiastical authorities merely increased its popularity and the satisfaction of its authors. For instance, the fifth edition (1732) reveals that although Trenchard was ‘on his death-bed and past all hope of recovery, he laughed very heartily at the attack made by a certain clergyman’. The Bishop of Sodor and Man, Thomas Wilson, even petitioned the island’s governor, Alexander Home, ‘to keep this most pestilent book out of the island’. Not in the slightest bit française’ (McKenna, ‘“Le Symbole d’un laïque”’, at p. 210). In 1798/99 an anonymous Italian version of the last title appeared in the Napoleonic Cisalpine Republic (Milan: Printed by Francesco Pogliani ‘in the seventh Republican year’) with the title Il simbolo di un uomo non sacerdote, ossia La professione di fede di un uomo disinteressato. Traduzione dall’inglese (though it was most likely translated from the French). See Guerci, ‘Incredulità e rigenerazione’, p. 75. See also Hammersley, The English Republican Tradition, pp. 124, 126–27. 33  A selection of Montanus’s writings had appeared as Four Letters […] Relating to the Present Rebellion. The same year the fourth letter was reprinted separately in Dublin and Cork as The Free Briton’s Answer.

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

17

intimidated, Gordon and Trenchard responded to Bishop Wilson by producing a curious pamphlet called The Craftsmen, republished a number of times at least until 1839. It was also circulated in colonial New York by The Independent Reflector, a sympathetic weekly founded in 1752 by William Livingstone. The Craftsmen is a commentary — deliberately attributed to the Presbyterian preacher, Daniel Burgess34 — on Chapter 19 of the Acts of the Apostles, which recounts how the Ephesians rose up in protest at the prospect that the local economy, based on worship of the goddess Artemis, might be undermined by Paul’s ministry: The Priests-Church being a trading Church, and money being her end, and grimace her ware, which were the source of their authority and reverence; whatever enlightened the People, marred the Market of the Priests. […] Paul had opened some men’s eyes, and the loaves began to come in but slowly. This enraged the Craftsmen, and they enraged the People. The Priests lost customers, and the People lost their senses. Such is the power of delusion over dark and slavish minds! […] They could not stand Paul’s Logick; he appealed to Facts, he appealed to Reason, he appealed to Conscience. […] Jesus we know, and Paul we know, but who are ye?

A vital clue to identifying the authors of otherwise anonymous individual articles in the Independent Whig was provided by Gordon in his preface to the 1732 edition: ‘[In order] to gratify the usual curiosity of readers, at the end of each paper [the editor has] put the initial letter of the name of the gentleman who wrote it. As there were only three Gentlemen concerned in the undertaking, and, as their names are well known, it will be easy to distinguish them from this mark’. Of the fifty-three published issues, twenty-two were written by Gordon, eighteen by Trenchard, and three were produced jointly. The remaining ten were by a nonidentified ‘C’, although the available evidence suggests the name of Anthony Collins. The dedication of the first edition in book format (1722), brazenly addressed ‘To the Lower House of the Convocation’, is sufficiently clear about the principles that inspired the Independent Whig and the persuasions of its authors: Religion which does not produce Morality, deserves another name. […] If a Man be really Moral, neither the Civil Magistrate, nor his Fellow-Citizens, ought to have any concern what he believes, or how he believes. Our Actions are in our Power, but our Thoughts are not, no more than our Dreams. Belief necessarily follows Evidence; and where the Evidence does not appear sufficient, a Man cannot believe if he would. […] Morality is Natural Religion, which prompts us to do Good to all

34 

See Bradley, ‘Anti-Catholicism as Anglican Anticlericalism’, at p. 71.

18 Chapter I

Men, and to all Men alike, without regard to their speculations, any more than to their clothes, or to the colour of their hair. […] Morality is social Virtue, or rather the Mother of all social Virtues: It wishes and promotes unlimited and universal Happiness to the whole World: It regards not a Christian more than a Jew or an Indian, any further than as he is a better Citizen; and not so much, if he be not.

The idea that liberty is simply ‘a matter of not being prevented from acting in line with the most pressing motive’ was a Hobbesian theme35 that also crops up in Collins: ‘There can be no liberty but what supposes the certainty and necessity of all events. True liberty therefore is consistent with necessity, and ought not to be oppos’d to it, but only to compulsion’.36 Subjectively, Collins’s morality is ‘rigorously hedonist’. The human being is a necessary agent, determined by pleasure and pain. What makes crime immoral is the pain of punishment, which has nothing to do with moral judgement of the individual, but is exclusively about the well-being and cohesion of the community. This is an important element insofar as it refers to the pactional foundation of society, the conventional status of ethics, and the primacy of human law. The convergence of political goals between the ‘Independent Whigs’ and the government was dramatically interrupted at the end of 1720 with the collapse of the financial speculation orchestrated by the South Sea Company. For some time there had been unease in many quarters about the increasing tendency to run up the public debt. The government met its interest payment obligations by increasing the fiscal pressure on landed property, which resulted in a new and worrying social and monetary mobility. The Bank, the Stock Exchange, and other, newly founded financial institutions ‘seemed to command government itself. The assets of the City were seen as an inexhaustible fountain of corruption, for which the South Sea Bubble served as a spectacular symbol’.37 The Bubble contributed more than any other event to fostering the impression that the nation’s government officials paid little heed to the law, were poor guardians of public savings, and were primarily concerned with their own personal enrichment. In 1711, John Blunt, the secretary of the Sword Blade Company — a company which had produced blades since 1691 but had also started, in 1702, to operate as a bank, accepting deposits, stipulating loans, and issuing credit notes 35 

Harris, Of Liberty and Necessity: The Free Will Debate, p. 8. In a footnote to the preface to King, Essay on the Origin of Evil, ed. and trans. by Law (1731), Law included the authors of Cato’s Letters among the modern ‘most remarkable defenders’ of the doctrine that man acts necessarily. 36  Collins, An Essay Concerning the Use of Reason in Propositions, p. 50. 37  Speck, ‘Whigs and Tories Dim their Glories’, pp. 64–65.

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

19

— had managed to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Robert Harley, to convert a significant proportion of the public debt into shares in a company devoted to exploring the South Seas, which was being set up at the time. The South Sea Company saw the light of day in the same year, and, from 1 August 1711, enjoyed exclusive trading rights ‘into, unto and from the Kingdoms, Lands etc. of America, on the east side from the river Aranoca, to the southernmost part of Terra del Fuego, on the west side thereof, from the said southernmost part through the South Seas to the northernmost part of America, and into, unto and from all countries in the same limits, reputed to belong to the Crown of Spain, or which shall hereafter be discovered’.38 The Company earned interest on the acquired public debt, initially at a rate of six per cent. In reality, however, Spain never did grant a trading concession and the only colonial agreement that England managed to seal was an undertaking to deliver forty eight hundred slaves a year to the Spanish colonies for thirty years. Although the Company was evidently unable to respect its corporate purpose, in 1718 it managed to reach an agreement with the government for a further conversion of the public debt into stock, this time with annual interest of five per cent. In 1720 the Company even succeeded in convincing Parliament to act as guarantor of the entire public debt rather than one third, as had previously been agreed. In February of the same year, the Company’s shares soared from one hundred twenty nine to one hundred sixty pounds in the space of a few days. In March, they were worth over two hundred pounds. After reaching a peak of one thousand fifty pounds in July, the Company’s shares began to dip and then plummeted. The managers quickly started selling stock. In the space of four weeks, share value fell by seventy-five per cent. Despite a public outcry, the levelling of charges against a number of managers and parliamentarians, and the confiscation of their assets, the government majority remained intact. Charles Stanhope, one of the Treasury secretaries, avoided Commons censure by just three votes, after George I intervened in his favour. His cousin James Stanhope, the Secretary of State, died after the rupture of a blood vessel during an audition in the House of Lords in which he was responding to charges of corruption. Sunderland survived a hostile Commons resolution with two hundred thirty-three votes against one hundred seventy-two. This was due to an ‘outstanding performance’ by his longstanding rival, Robert Walpole, who defended him with the strategic intent to win the favour of the king, whose popularity, already on the wane, would have been 38 

BL, MS Addit. 16281. See Carswell, The South Sea Bubble; Harris, ‘The Bubble Act’; Hoppit, ‘The Myths of the South Sea Bubble’.

20 Chapter I

irreparably damaged by a parliamentary vote of no confidence in his minister. Walpole’s support had a price, and in fact he replaced Sunderland as First Lord of the Treasury. When Sunderland died in 1722, Walpole effectively became prime minister, in conjunction with Townshend. It was in the turmoil of these events that Trenchard and Gordon, in an outburst of indignation, conceived of the celebrated Cato’s Letters, which were first published in the London Journal and the British Journal, and then gathered into four volumes in 1724. In one of the best-known letters (no. 33, ‘Cautions against the Natural Encroachments of Power’), Gordon emphasized the inevitable ambivalence of power, which is at once a precondition and a threat to liberty: ‘And whereas Power can, and for the most part does, subsist where Liberty is not, Liberty cannot subsist without Power; so that she has, as it were, the enemy always at her gates’. The fruitful working relationship between Gordon and the publisher Roberts, ‘who owned by far the largest publishing shop in London’,39 permitted the widespread circulation of further appeals by Gordon calling for those who bore the greatest responsibility for the financial scandal to receive exemplary punishments. These appeals included Francis, Lord Bacon: or The Case of Private and National Corruption, and Bribery, Impartially Consider’d and above all The Conspirators: or The Case of Catilina, written in two parts. The Conspirators ran to ten editions in London and two in Dublin between 1721 and 1722.40 Dedicated to the Count of Sunderland, the work draws a parallel between the decadence of the age (‘an age of degeneracy and corruption’) and that of Rome. Taking as his own Machiavelli’s lesson that ‘there is no sure way of making things safe but by executing the principals’, Gordon invited the minister to act ‘like a second Cato’ and not to display any ‘partiality in favour of traytors’.41 Some manuscript notes in the margins of various surviving copies of this pamphlet 39 

Urstad, Sir Robert’s Walpole’s Poets, p. 42. An extract of this piece is republished in Factions No More, ed. by Gunn, pp. 84–85. 41  Gordon also evokes here the somewhat paradoxical eulogy of conflict contained in the fourth chapter of Machiavelli’s Discorsi (‘the disagreement of the People and the Senate of Rome made that Commonwealth both free and mighty’) and observes that Roman virtue, order, and good discipline ‘proceeded from the tumults and civil broils that arose in the city of Rome’. To further clarify this point he adds the authority of Cicero and says, ‘The desires of a free people never tend to the subversion of liberty; […] their discontents proceed either from actual oppression, or from some danger, which they foresee, of falling into it’ (Gordon, The Conspirators, or, The Case of Catiline, pt ii, pp. 11–12). See Geuna, ‘Republicanism and Commercial Society in the Scottish Enlightenment’, pp. 191–92. 40 

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

21

reveal that readers were able to identify the contemporary politicians alluded to as the Roman conspirators. In particular, they recognized Walpole (nicknamed ‘the Skreenmaster’ and depicted as a screen in satirical drawings) as Hortensius, ‘a Senator of no great family or fortune; […] when in office, he was tyrannical and arbitrary; when discarded, busy and intrigueing in order to replace himself; […] and then he became as strenuous in skreening the Conspirators from the punishment, which Cato and other Senators, of severe morals, press’d to have inflicted’ (i, pp. v, 29–31). In the postscript to Three Political Letters to a Noble Lord concerning Liberty and the Constitution (1721), Gordon commented ironically on the family ties between Walpole and Townshend, while in the work itself current political events were examined through the lens of Livy and Sallust, ‘further evidence of the living republican imagination’.42 In Livy’s narrative the moral decadence of the Decemvirates finally induced the plebeians to rise up in defence of their liberty. England, unlike other nations (where ‘slavery is taught to be an inheritance by divine right’), had not formally relinquished its ancient constitution and still had a Bill of Rights to safeguard parliamentary liberties, but this did not exempt it from keeping a careful watch on those in power: ‘We can never guard enough against every violation of our rights, nor punish the offenders with too much severity. […] Whenever a Legislature acts against the important interests, and original compact of the People, so far they act without authority, and are answerable to their principals for the violation of their engagements’. It is above all when people believe they are ruled by a diligent and munificent government, comments Gordon, citing Machiavelli again, that it is necessary to be especially alert and to avoid the poisoned fruits of adulation. How unhappy are Mankind, that they must […] stifle their gratitude and affection to a good Prince. […] But yet such precautions are absolutely necessary, if men will preserve their liberties. They must take care of the least possibility of what may tend to introduce Arbitrary Power; and beware of gratifying the expectations of the most virtuous King, for fear of authorizing the pretensions of a bad one. […] Augustus must die and Tiberius must succeed (Supplement to the Three Political Letters, 1721).

It is possible to detect here a key aspect of the interesting interpretation of the ‘republican tradition’ developed by Quentin Skinner, who — departing from the view of J. G. A. Pocock — sustains that the republican language of the Early Modern Age is more indebted to Roman philosophers and historians (Cicero and Sallust) than to Aristotelian thinking. According to Skinner, in Machiavelli 42 

Champion, ‘“Anglia Libera”: Commonwealth Politics’, p. 100.

22 Chapter I

and in the republicans who draw on his views, Man is not presented as an animal politicum et sociale but as a human being exposed to corruption and prone to neglect his obligations towards the community. The liberty theorized by republicans is not a positive form of liberty, but a particular kind of negative liberty. Individuals do not become involved in political life because that is their natural destiny but to prevent it from degenerating, in other people’s hands, into oppressive despotism, thereby threatening their own security and property. Furthermore, in the ‘neoRoman’ theory of liberty, ‘it is only possible to be free in a free state’, where the imperium of law is superior to the imperium of human beings. Liberty is viewed not only as an ‘absence of interference’ but also as an ‘absence of dependence’. One cannot therefore depend on the good will of those who hold political power, in that living in a condition of dependence is, in itself, a source and a form of constriction, making one vulnerable to ‘potential interference’.43 An attempt will be made below to demonstrate that there are other possible readings of Gordon’s political thinking, as expressed above all in Cato’s Letters, and other influences that are not alternative but complementary. 5. The staging of Joseph Addison’s tragedy, Cato, at the Drury Lane Theatre in London in 1713, left an indelible trace in the political imagination of those years. The ‘Independent Whigs’ immediately appropriated the exemplary figure of Cato of Utica, who, in defiance of Caesar’s despotism, had demanded the re-establishment of the authority of the senators and a greater balance of power. Following his defeat, he committed suicide, preferring death to tyranny. ‘The notion that eternal vigilance constitutes the price of liberty is thoroughly Catonic. […] To a people steeped in Roman lore, struggling to make government by consent work and powerfully persuaded that a crisis of liberty was at hand, Cato was the perfect symbol’.44 Between 5 November 1720 and 27 July 1723 Trenchard and Gordon published one hundred thirty-eight letters at a rate of one a week, almost all of which were signed with the pseudonym ‘Cato’. The series ended with the death of Trenchard. However, they were so successful that 43  Skinner, Liberty Before Liberalism; Skinner, ‘Classical Liberty’; Skinner, ‘Freedom as the Absence of Arbitrary Power’; Skinner, Hobbes and Republican Liberty, pp. 152–57. ‘It is allowed that amongst the Roman Emperors’ — Gordon says in his ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’ — ‘there were some excellent ones. But was not all this chance? […] and his human Society to depend for security and happiness upon uncertain Inclinations and Will? They were good by conformity to the Laws, as Laws are the only defence against such as are bad’ (Tacitus, The Works of Tacitus, ed. and trans. by Gordon, iv, Disc. v, Sect. xiii; see also v, Disc. iv, Sect. i). 44  Browning, Political and Constitutional Ideas, p. 10. See also Wolloch, ‘Cato the Younger’.

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

23

they were repeatedly reprinted in book form between 1721 and 1755 and were also translated into Dutch and French (in 1754 and 1790 respectively). 45 The third edition, which appeared in four volumes in 1733 (and had the explanatory subtitle Essays on liberty, civil and religious, and other important subjects), clarified the paternity of each letter and included six others published by Gordon between 24 August and 7 December 1723. Cato’s Letters have long been considered an important text for an understanding of the ideological foundations of the American revolutionaries. In 1912, Elizabeth Cook observed that ‘Cato’s Letters were popular enough in the colonies to be quoted in every colonial newspaper from Boston to Savannah’. According to Bernard Bailyn, ‘Cato’s Letters were printed again and again, referred to and quoted in every possible context, in every colony in America’. Edmund Morgan, in Inventing the People, emphasizes that the American colonists were ‘avid readers of Trenchard and Gordon’.46 Heather E. Barry has recently published a doctoral thesis in which she charts the widespread circulation in the pre-revolutionary periodic press of quotations and extensive passages from Cato’s Letters, and their frequent recurrence in college and subscription libraries, and in private libraries, including that of Thomas Jefferson. ‘Trenchard and Gordon’s significance’, she observes, ‘should be recognized to the degree that their essays reinforced a political culture that encouraged the participation of lower and middling groups and rejected deferential society in Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts before 1760. Then, their significance in other colonies after 1760 was that they encouraged popular politics in response to Parliament’s policies regarding the colonies’. In New York, the Letters were seized on in the fierce controversy between the New York Gazette, orchestrated by the governor, William Cosby, and the New York Weekly Journal printed by John Peter Zenger. The Journal gave voice to the opposition that formed around Lewis Morris, who had been treacherously removed from his position as Chief Justice for having denied Cosby public emoluments that were not due. Cosby managed to get Zenger arrested in 1734 for ‘seditious libel’ because, in his view, Zenger’s newspaper had undermined imperial power. At the trial, Zenger’s lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, based his defence address on essay 38 of Cato’s Letters, entitled ‘The right and capacity of the People to judge the Government’, which sustained that in a ‘just government’ the people should have the right to judge their governors and denounce corruption when it 45  Trenchard and Gordon, Brieven over de Vryheid; Gordon, Dix-septième lettre de Caton, trans. by Chalmel. 46  Cook, Literary Influences in Colonial Newspapers, p. 81; Bailyn, The Origins of American Politics, p. 54; Morgan, Inventing the People, p. 167.

24 Chapter I

came to light. Hamilton also invoked the jurisprudential tradition of New York, which required its judging bodies to transcend their loyalty to the Crown and obliged them ‘to support local customs that allowed citizens to protest against corrupt government officials’. Zenger was cleared. The controversy continued until 26 March 1739 at least, when the New York Weekly Journal published its final Cato text, ‘A vindication of Brutus, for having killed Caesar’ (no. 56). By this time Cosby had already died from natural causes. Nonetheless the essay was a final warning to be vigilant with respect to power and to spare no effort ‘to secure a just government free from arbitrary rule’. A few years later, in 1753, another New York newspaper, the Independent Reflector (one of whose founders had been William Smith Sr., who had already been involved in the Morris-Cosby dispute) used arguments expressed in Cato’s Letters to oppose the establishment of a new college in New York — King’s College (now Columbia) — that would have been funded by the public but controlled by the Episcopal Church. On 5 March of that year, The Reflector, paraphrasing the Independent Whig (no.  5), warned of the serious risks of an education provided by religious authorities intent on sowing ‘the seed of superstition in a tender mind’. An article entitled ‘A Defence of Ridicule’, which appeared on 6 September, noted that ‘the Independent Whig had gone farther towards shaming tyranny and priestcraft […] with downright banter, than could have been effected by austere dogmas, or formal deductions’. Above all, paraphrasing (in an article dated 2 August) the powerful beginning of essay no. 45 of Cato’s Letters (‘Men are naturally equal, none ever rose above the rest but by force or consent’), the Reflector concluded that ‘the religious leaders and lay men, as being both born with the same liberty, both must abide by the same laws’. The controversy ended in 1756 when the Assembly decided to assign only half of the lottery funds to the college and to give the other half to the Corporation of the City of New York.47 The attempt made by some historians from the 1950s onwards to establish the philosophical foundations of Trenchard and Gordon’s works has led them to become bogged down in the convoluted ‘Lockean Liberalism versus Republicanism debate’ which has raged for decades, to the point that it sometimes appears ‘sterile, unproductive and even nauseating’. 48 Others, for instance Gunn, have simply concluded that Trenchard and Gordon’s ideas are

47  Barry, A ‘Dress Rehearsal’ For Revolution, pp. 62–84, 114. See also Colbourn, ‘Thomas Jefferson’s Use of the Past’, p. 61. 48  Gibson, ‘Ancients, Moderns and Americans’. See also the ‘Afterword’ to the second edition of Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment, pp. 553–83.

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

25

not always coherent.49 The debate started when the postulate that Locke’s ideas on individual rights (grounded in the protection of private property) had a pre-eminent influence in the eighteenth century began to be questioned. It was argued that eighteenth-century British people and American colonists were more concerned with participating in public life and being virtuous than with being swayed by private and selfish ends. Those who supported the Lockean interpretation sustained that the American colonists had drawn on Locke’s teachings indirectly, first and foremost through Trenchard and Gordon. With the advent of republican revisionism, however, Trenchard and Gordon were reinterpreted as classic republicans. For revisionists the tradition of civic virtue was regarded as having provided the values, aspirations, and rhetoric of American Revolutionary ideology. And in the revisionist historiography Cato’s Letters were seen as representing one of the most important vehicles for the transmission of this tradition to pre-Revolutionary America. Even those historians who challenged the revisionist thesis, maintaining that America’s ideological origins were essentially Lockean and liberal, tended to accept the reading of Cato’s Letters ‘as an emblematical classical republican text’.50 Perhaps a synthesis of these views is possible, and indeed a fairly persuasive one has already been attempted by Zuckert, Sullivan, and Burtt. But before introducing it, and adding some further interpretative concepts, it is necessary to briefly outline the arguments of the original participants in this debate. In a pioneering work published in 1959, Caroline Robbins identified the ‘Commonwealthmen’ or ‘Real Whigs’ as a dissident minority in the Whig world. They were active in denouncing corruption in the public sphere, suspicious of the new trading economy and the development of the Cabinet government (both of which were viewed as a threat to the ‘balance of the constitution’), and culturally influenced by the works of Locke but above all by those of Algernon Sidney and James Harrington. Although their ideas had little influence on the political dynamics of the mother country, they gained strength, through the mediation of the works of Trenchard and Gordon, in the American political-institutional debate. ‘In the constitutions of the several United States many of the ideas of the Real Whigs found practical expression. A supreme court, rotation in office, a separation of powers, and a complete independence from each other of church and state fulfilled many a so-called utopian dream’.51 49 

Gunn, Beyond Liberty and Property, pp. 19–23. Mitchell, ‘A Liberal Republican “Cato”’, p. 588. 51  Robbins, The Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman, p. 18. 50 

26 Chapter I

In his highly authoritative Machiavellian Moment (1975), J. G. A. Pocock rejects the idea that the opposition to corruption in eighteenth-century British society was limited to a marginal group of ‘Real Whigs’, and argues that Trenchard and Gordon gave voice to a much larger group of ‘Country theorists’ who were in polemical opposition to the ‘Court theorists’. Cato, in particular, ‘develops an unmistakably Machiavellian and neo-Harringtonian critique of corruption and of the republic which is its opposite; and he specifically declares that England (or Britain) is a republic, of that peculiarly happy kind which has a king as his chief magistrate’. However, according to Pocock, Cato ‘was not primarily a constitutional theorist’. Rather, ‘the concept of virtue dictated a politics of personal morality’. A virtuous populace should be concerned with the public good, not with private and selfish ends. Pocock also kept his reading of the republican tradition within the terms of an essential antinomy between virtue and trade. Property for Harrington and the Harringtonians ‘was not dynamic, productive, or capitalist, but existed for the sake of political participation’.52 Even historians like Joyce Appleby and Isaac Kramnick, who criticize the application of the neo-Harringtonian paradigm as the interpretative key to the political ideology of revolutionary America, accept the representation of Trenchard and Gordon as classic republicans and propagandists of a ‘politics of nostalgia’ that rejected material progress because it was not founded on virtue.53 Other authors, including Ronald Hamowy (who in 1995 produced a two-volume edition of Cato’s Letters based on the sixth edition of 1755), Marie McMahon, Thomas Pangle,54 and, more than anyone else, Michael Zuckert, have detected and charted a significant presence of Lockean themes in the works of Trenchard and Gordon. In Zuckert’s view, ‘Cato’s political philosophy begins exactly where Locke’s does: “All men are naturally equal”’. This condition of equality is described by Locke and Cato a ‘state of nature’. Cato explicitly endorses ‘the corollary of human equality or the state of nature, government as artifact’. The notion of citizenship as an arena for self-fulfilment ‘comports poorly with Cato’s acceptance of the Hobbesian-Lockean doctrine that the “natural state of man” is a “state of nature”, that is, a state without political life of any kind’. For Cato ‘the foundations 52  Pocock, ‘Machiavelli, Harrington, and English Political Ideologies’, at p. 131; Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment, 2003 [1975], pp. 467–70. 53  Appleby, ‘Republicanism and Ideology’; Kramnick, ‘Republican Revisionism Revisited’; Mitchell, ‘The Character of an Independent Whig’, Chapter 8, pp. 223–57. See also the now classic article by Rodgers, ‘Republicanism: The Career of a Concept’, and The Political Imagination in History, ed. by DeLuna and others. 54  Pangle, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism.

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

27

of political life are not high and “self-fulfilling” but necessitous and defensive’. However, he ‘sees dangers to liberty even within a formally free constitution, for the executive possess resources to turn the guardians of public liberty from their task. He therefore calls, for a deeper-going effort to guard against those dangers and points towards a republic as the best means, in an ideal world, to accomplish this goal’. Finally, he emphasizes the role of political liberty ‘in encouraging labor and commerce, which in turn produce plenty’: Letter no. 67, states, in fact, that it is ‘natural to men and societies, to be setting their wits and hands to work, to find out all means to satisfy their wants and desires, and to enable them to live in credit and comfort’.55 Vickie Sullivan, in her innovative analysis of the formation of a ‘Liberal Republicanism’ in England, stresses that the vehement position adopted in Cato against those responsible for the financial scandal does not imply a rejection of the new world of trade as such, ‘but rather [of ] the manner in which that world can be corrupted by government intrusion’. Cato, like Hobbes, is of the persuasion that passions hold sway over human psychology. ‘Perfect happiness being [men’s] chief aim, and always out of their reach, they are restlesly grasping at what they never can attain. […] So that there is the same end of wishing as of living, and death only can still the appetites’ (Letters, no. 40). However, like Machiavelli, Cato ‘is ambitious for ambition in his state’. And also like Machiavelli — continues Sullivan — Cato proposes ‘that ambition when it becomes threatening to the free life of a state be punished publicly and severely’. The safeguarding of Lockean rights therefore requires Machiavellian vigilance, ingratitude, and revenge. But Cato takes a different line from Machiavelli with regard to the means by which glory should be pursued. In fact, he ‘renounces the battlefield as the venue where glory is to be gained in order to embrace trade as the vehicle by which England can compete and best other nations’. Elsewhere (nos 35 and 85) Cato even expresses an egalitarian inclination, recognizing the benefits of an agrarian law (‘an equality of estate will give an equality of power; and an equality of power is a commonwealth, or democracy’) but then immediately relegates it to a utopian dimension: ‘We have an excellent constitution at the present; and if not the best which can be formed in an utopian commonwealth, yet I doubt the best that we are capable of receiving’ (no. 80). ‘Tacitus observed of the Romans in his time Nec totam libertatem nec totam servitutem pati posse. […] This is certainly the case of England at present, if by liberty be understood what I presume he meant by it,

55 

See Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, pp. 289–319.

28 Chapter I

a republican form of government’ (no. 85).56 As a matter of fact, the citizen of a republic defined by an agrarian law cannot recognize his liberty in the ability ‘to grow as rich as he can’ (no. 62).57 Shelley Burtt, in Virtue Transformed: Political Argument in England, 1688– 1740, has suggested that a provisional synthesis is to be found in Cato to the apparently irreconcilable contrast between ‘a republican politics based on an all-encompassing emotional engagement with the polis [and] a liberal society peopled by economically active, politically passive interest-maximizers’, in that it outlines the elements and benefits of a ‘privately oriented civic virtue’: ‘We do not expect philosophical virtue from them [Mankind]; but only that they follow virtue as their interest, and find it penal and dangerous to depart from it’ (no. 40). Cato does not associate the threat to political liberty either with the vice of particular individuals or with the impulses of the great. Instead, he takes the view that ‘this Evil has its root in human nature’.58 The ‘restless and selfish spirit of man’ makes it indispensable to have governors who will keep the peace and respect individual rights. But this spirit also inevitably makes those governors a threat to the liberty they are called upon to protect. It is therefore necessary to establish laws that ‘make Honesty and Equity their interest’. But even this does 56  Accused of a ‘republican’ purpose in quoting Algernon Sidney in Cato’s Letters, Gordon replied: ‘It is dishonestly suggested that I am republican. […] The passages which I take out from him are not republican passages, unless virtue and truth be republican. […] Mr Sidney’s book […] is […] agreeable to our own constitution, which is the best republick in the world, with a prince at the head of it. [...] Our government is a thousand degrees nearer a-kin to a commonwealth [...] than it is to absolute monarchy. [...] If this be the style and spirit of a republican, I glory in it’ (Trenchard and Gordon, Cato’s Letters, ed. by Hamowy, no. 37). See also Gordon, History of England, fol. 282r: ‘Legal Monarchy is certainly preferable to every other species of Government, at least in England, I think, under the sun’. For an ‘enlightened nobleman’ who ranked Gordon with Sidney, see Venturi, ‘Le avventure del generale Henry Lloyd’. 57  Sullivan, Machiavelli, and Sullivan, ‘Muted and Manifest English Machiavellianism’, pp. 80, 84–85. See also Rahe, ‘Antiquity Surpassed’; Armitage, ‘Empire and Liberty’, at p. 40; Zagorin, ‘Republicanisms’; Jacob, ‘Was the Eighteenth-Century Republican Essentially Anticapitalist?’, p. 14. 58  Similar arguments recur in the government press, but with the aim of bolstering the government and even of justifying widespread corruption: ‘’Tis the hardship of just and good men, that they are often obliged to buy [men, and] it would sometimes prove their destruction should they neglect it’ (Free Briton, 18 January 1733, no. 164). ‘To expect men in power and office should pursue the Good of the Publick, without any regard to their own particular interest, is the most ridiculous expectation in the world: that ’tis contrary to Reason and Justice and the Good of the Community too: ’tis a Romantick notion, and meer visionary virtue’ (London Journal, 25 September 1731, no. 639). See Targett, ‘Government and Ideology’.

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

29

not seem to suffice, because Cato very rarely ‘affirms the practical possibility of magisterial virtue, even when encouraged by the coercive force of the law’. Instead, Cato warns the masses to treat those endowed with political authority warily. ‘Individuals who possess great wealth or high office find their personal interests at odds with their public responsibilities’. Responsible citizens, on the other hand, whose primary commitments are not political but economic, do not experience the same conflict. ‘Protected in this way from the corrupting corridors of power, the people’s only desires are for goods entirely consonant with the public welfare […]: “The People’s Interest is the Publick Interest; it signifies the same thing”’. Burtt reveals here the distance of Cato from the Craftsman of Bolingbroke (the ‘pseudo-whig’, as Caroline Robbins has called him) and from his faith in the possibility that a good prince is naturally able to embrace and continue a virtuous regime, and even from Mandeville, although he too believes that the pre-political individual ‘proceeds not in terms of rights and reason, but purely in terms of passions and desires’: Cato’s work appears to Burtt profoundly unsympathetic to the ‘skilful Politicians’ and ‘sagacious Moralists’, the ‘anthropomorphized forces of civilization’ so frequently mentioned in Mandeville’s analyses. Instead Cato emphasizes the notion of liberty as a natural right, ‘the power which every man has over his own actions, and his right to enjoy the fruit of his labour, art and industry, as far as by it he hurts not the society, or any members of it. […] The entering into political society, is so far from a departure from his natural right, that to preserve it was the sole reason why men did so’ (no. 62).59 Marie P. McMahon, agreeing with Kramnick that the ‘spokesman for that most establishment of Whigs, Walpole, repeatedly invoked Locke’ and accepting as reliable those who paint a picture of a more mature Gordon in the role of supervisor of the government press, concludes that Gordon is ‘the common thread linking the expression of Lockean ideas from Cato’s Letters to Walpole’s press campaign against Country-opposition writers in the Craftsman’. McMahon rejects E. P. Thompson’s grim interpretation of the Walpole administration as a hegemony based not on consensus and stability, but on a series of coercive measures such as the Riot Act, the Black Act, the suspension of habeas corpus, and the systematic use of government patronage, arguing instead that it took effective measures to counter the continuing Jacobite threat. According to McMahon, ‘the Whig ministry gains the overt support of these two “Independent Whigs”, especially the younger Cato, because it is the only bulwark against what they fear

59 

Burtt, Virtue Transformed, esp. pp. 1–14, 64–86, and 128–49.

30 Chapter I

most: counterreformation and counterrevolution’.60 However, as will become clear, the situation is more complicated than that. 6. Annie Mitchell, whose (as yet unpublished) doctoral thesis (UCL 2002) is devoted in large part to the importance of religious liberty in Gordon’s political thought, explores the main analogies between Trenchard and Gordon’s views and those of Mandeville, who is even described as their ‘auxiliary’ in a letter published in The London Journal.61 In 1723 the Middlesex Grand Jury asked the Court of the King’s Bench to censure (as a public nuisance) the Fable of the Bees and four articles published in the British Journal between 16 March and 25 March 1723, all of which ended up in Cato’s Letters (nos 120, 129, 130, 133). The four letters respectively questioned the belief in the Trinity, attacked the influence of the clergy, and denounced the partial nature of the education provided by the Charity Schools, which had been set up in the middle of the 1690s at the request of Thomas Tenison, the Archbishop of Canterbury. ‘The principles of our nobility and gentry are debauched in our universities, and those of our common people in our charity-schools […] so [they] are bred up to be traitors, before they know what treason signifies’ (no. 133). Mandeville himself, in his Essay on Charity Schools (1723), also criticized the usefulness of these institutions, arguing that the acquisition of knowledge had the effect of creating desires that it was difficult to reconcile with the needs of the poor. The main accusations levelled against these authors by the Grand Jury were that they had expressed Arian inclinations and had spoken of ‘luxury, avarice, pride and all kind of vices, as being necessary to Publick Welfare’. Mitchell emphasizes that Mandeville’s observations on human nature are indebted to Bayle, La Rochefoucauld, and Catholic moralist views

60 

McMahon, The Radical Whigs, pp. 88–91, 106–11. See Mitchell, ‘The Character of an Independent Whig’, Chapter 5, pp. 132–56, and Mitchell, ‘“Cato” and Bernard Mandeville’. Mitchell discusses the reading of Trenchard and Gordon as ‘civic humanist icons’. In her interpretation, the ideological basis of Trenchard and Gordon’s thought ‘was not a belief in the corrupting power of wealth, which threatened civic virtue, but a fear of the encroaching power of the established Church’. Moreover, ‘their view of virtue was based largely on a naturalistic concept of human nature which they derived from the sensationalist philosophy of Hobbes and Locke’. Essentially, she explains, they regarded man as a creature ‘ruled by his passions rather than by reason’. Consequently, man’s self-love had to be ‘manipulated or constrained by custom or law to serve the good of society’. Finally, according to Mitchell, Trenchard and Gordon valued Tacitus and Machiavelli ‘not for what they had to say about civic virtue but for their political pragmatism’. 61 

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

31

about self-esteem, and that similar analogies can be detected, and indeed are openly declared, in the work of Trenchard and Gordon. In fact, Gordon does speak of Bayle in particular in unequivocally admiring terms: ‘Extraordinary learning and extraordinary wit seldom meet in one man: the velocity of their genius renders men of great wit incapable of that laborious patience necessary to make a man very learned. Cicero and Monsieur Bayle, had both, and so had our Milton and George Buchanan’.62 Furthermore, in his brilliant dialogic portrayal — republished on a number of occasions — of the Huguenot theologian Pierre Jurieu, who pleaded with the civil authorities of Rotterdam ‘to silent Mr. Bayle’ as being ‘an advocate for atheism’, Gordon did not hesitate to step into the shoes of a burgomaster sympathetic to the incriminated philosopher: [Mr Bayle] has too much sense to be an atheist, and too much virtue to like atheism. He has, if you please, proved unanswerably, that a sensible atheist, governed by the laws of nature, and by the maxims and conveniences of ease, is a better member of society, than a mad and mischievous enthusiast, who plagues, persecutes, robs, and kills his fellow-creatures, in obedience to the precepts of a false religion. A proposition as certain and evident as that good is better than evil (p. 5).63

Mitchell has also pointed out that Gordon may have been acquainted with the Dutch republicans, as he makes reference, in the St James Journal of 13 April 1723, to Pieter de la Court’s The True Interest of Holland, available in English translation since 1702 and still attributed to Johan de Witt. While this cannot be taken as a sign that Gordon accepted de la Court’s views, it does indicate interest in an ‘essentially urban and commercial’ political perspective characterized by its ‘uncompromising anti-monarchism and egalitarian tendency’.64 In the 1650s and 62 

Trenchard and Gordon, Cato’s Letters, ed. by Hamowy, ‘The Preface’. For further laudatory remarks on Bayle, see Gordon’s ‘Introduction’ to Sallust, The Works, ed. and trans. by Gordon, p. xx. In his ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, though, Gordon reproves Bayle for subscribing to the criticism of Tacitus found in a book entitled Anonimiana [ou, Mélanges de poésies, d’éloquence, et d’érudition, Paris, 1700]: ‘This is the less matter of wonder to me, for that Mr. Bayle, with all his immense learning, acuteness, and candour, had a strange and unnatural bias to absolute Monarchy, though he had fled from the fury of it, and taken refuge in a free State. A proof this that great weakness cleaves to the greatest minds; and who can boast an exemption from prejudices, when a spirit so signally disinterested and philosophical as that of Bayle was not exempted?’ (Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, pp. 163–64). 63  See also Gordon, History of England, fol. 236v: ‘Is the want of Religion, however to be lamented, more lamentable than the shocking mockeries which they call Religion?’ 64  See Israel, Enlightenment Contested, Chapter 10, pp. 240-63.

32 Chapter I

60s the brothers Johan and Pieter de la Court had sustained that an ecclesiastical hierarchy should not be permitted to compete with political sovereignty, a view that was later powerfully reaffirmed by some of the radical figures described in Jonathan Israel’s Radical Enlightenment: Toland, Radicati, Tindal, Mandeville. It is not surprising, then, that Philip Skelton, in Deism Revealed (1749), refers to Trenchard and Gordon with dislike as ‘Libertine Apostles’: Tindal in his Rights of the Christian Church, and the authors of the Independent Whig […] endeavour to prove, there is no such order among us, distinct from, and independent of, the State. They represent us, as constituted, and almost as ordained, by Act of Parliament. When, in pursuit of Hobbes’ scheme, they insist, that the Clergy ought always to be the creatures of the civil power, they serve no other cause than that of Deism, or rather Atheism (p. 312).65

Gordon’s ‘republican’ outlook is therefore becoming increasingly delineated as the conception of a secular and tolerant society free from providential designs (‘as temporal felicity is the whole end of government’), which maintains for its ‘restricted but not dominated’ constituents (Skinner) the responsibility for keeping careful watch over power and the right to happiness, or at least the right to pursue it freely. The taxonomic distinction formulated by Philip Pettit is particularly useful in this regard. He distinguishes between ‘the populist image of government [which] represents the people as master and the state as servant [and] the republican or commonwealth image [which] depicts the people as trustor, the state as trustee’.66 Furthermore, although this ideal of ‘freedom as nondomination’ is still only for an elite of ‘propertied, mainstream males’ — Gordon held that the right to vote should only extend to freeholders and affirmed that ‘the representatives of the nation in Parliament ought to consist of the most wealthy, wise, sober and courageous of the people; nor men of mean spirits and slender fortunes’67 — there is nonetheless a clearly recognizable propensity to apply it more broadly: 65 

On the ‘Hobbesian’ character of Trenchard and Gordon’s thought, see Dworetz, The Unvarnished Doctrine, pp. 10, 104 –09. 66  Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, p. 8. 67  Gordon, The True Crisis, p. 30. See also Gordon, ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’, Disc. xi (‘By the People I mean not the idle and indigent Rabble, under which name the People are often understood and translated, but all who have property, without the privileges of Nobility’) and Gordon, ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’, p. 155 (‘the needy Rabble, always unsteady and thoughtless, for the most part venal and debauched, generally passionate for innovations, from whatever hand or quarter they come’) and pp. 190–91. In Gordon, Warning

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

33

In truth, every private subject has a right to watch the steps of those who would betray their country. […] The word mob does not at all move me […] nor weaken the grounds which I go upon. […] Every cobbler can judge, as well as a statesman, whether he can fit peaceably in his stall; whether he is paid for his work; whether the market, where he buys his victuals, be well provided; and whether a dragoon, or a parish-officer, comes to him for his taxes, if he pays any. Every man too, even the meanest, can see, in a publick and sudden transition from plenty to poverty, from happiness to distress, whether the calamity comes from war, and famine, and the hand of God; or from oppression, and mismanagement, and the villainies of men. In short, the people often judge better than their superiors (Cato’s Letters, no. 13).68

An important signal in support of the plausibility of a ‘radical’ reading of Gordon is the appreciation of his works expressed by Alberto Radicati di Passerano (1698– 1737), the hapless Piedmontese count who had backed a ‘political republicanism characterized by levelling and anti-aristocratic as well as anticlerical tendencies’.69 to the Whigs, he bitterly observes that ‘none are for leaving the Multitude to rule, but they who think they can rule the Multitude. The People generally speak the Sense of the Person who infuses his own Sense into them. The Sentiments of the People therefore, are often no other than the Sentiments of one Man, Dr Sacheverell, Wat. Tyler, or a News-Writer’ (p. 9). As regards the fickleness and ferocity of the ‘populace, always violent both in their love and their hate’, it is worth noting Gordon’s comments on the fate of the Brewer of Ghent, who was executed by a mob that had previously adored him (Gordon, History of England, fol. 342), and on the people’s fondness for the summary executions and witch hunts ordered by James I: ‘At Newark he did a thing still more offensive, indeed shocking to Men of Sense, though it might please the Multitude. He caused a fellow to be hanged without trial, by his bare warrant, for picking a pocket’ (fols 388v, 394r). 68  The pro-government press would specify, via its leading writer, William Arnall, that ‘all who possess small properties, or none, are of least importance in the State […] and have no right to any thing but a simple protection of their persons’ (British Journal, 15 June 1728, no. 22). The widening of the suffrage in Britain only got firmly onto the radical agenda in the 1790s. The 1832 Reform Act did subsequently extend those entitled to vote from 14 per cent to 18 per cent of the population. According to Blair Worden, ‘when republicans referred to the democratic element in the English constitution they meant the House of Commons. The beneficiaries of their electoral proposals would have been […] the smaller gentry and the independent freeholders who resented the electoral patronage of the court and of the great nobility. […] Even so, the republicans may have been largely responsible for the inheritance by the late eighteenth century of a language of equality that the popular radicals were to put to […] different uses’ (Worden, ‘The Revolution of 1688–9’, pp. 259–60). See also Higgins, ‘Remarks on Cato’s Letters’. 69  Israel, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, p.  71. On Radicati, see Venturi, Saggi sull’Europa illuminista, and Radicati, Discorsi morali, istorici e politici, ed. by Canestri.

34 Chapter I

My brethren Free-Thinkers […] formerly indeed it was a very dangerous matter to attack it [Religion] so abruptly as you often do: Hobbes and Spinoza were obliged, as you know, to write with much caution, in terms so obscure, that very many people have never been able to comprehend what designs those Authors could have in composing the Leviathan, and Tractatus Theologico-Politicus: and you are not ignorant what unhappy destiny fell to the share of Servetus and Vanini, together with their writings. But, it is owing wholly to the enterprising Genii of this Age, that we have seen Religion besieged openly from every quarter: Its Mysteries are turned into Ridicule by the ingenious Mr. Toland; Its clergy are become contemptible to many since they have read that smart piece, The Independent Whig; which having effectually cleared the way, and given assault to religious out-works, its very foundations were afterwards violently shaken by the celebrated performance of Mr. Collins; and finally, down tumbled the whole edifice, by means of those inimitable master-pieces of Mr. Woolston.70

Radicati made his literary debut in the London book market in 1730, getting the first of his Twelve Discourses Political and Historical published by John Peele, the same publisher-bookseller who had published the Independent Whig and Cato’s Letters in book format. The publication in 1732 of his Philosophical Dissertation on Death led the Bishop of London, Edmund Gibson, ‘a man insufferably proud, arrogant, haughty, ravenous, and no less vindicative than the grand Inquisitor of Goa’, to demand the jailing of the author, translator, and publisher. After a brief spell in jail, Radicati was released on bail. One of his important works, published in Rotterdam in 1736, is Recueil de pieces curieuses sur les matieres les plus interessantes, which contains the Histoire abregée de la profession sacerdotale, ancienne et moderne à la tres illustre et tres celèbre secte des Esprits-Forts par un Free-Thinker Chrêtien (the quotation above is from the 1737 English translation). A note in this text reveals a significant episode in Gordon’s life: ‘Mr. Thomas Gordon […] was but in very indifferent circumstances while he wrote it [the Independent Whig]; when all on a sudden, a certain Gentleman, who highly admired his writings, being on his death-bed, bequeathed him 12,000 Pound Sterlings’. The implications of this comment, which excludes a situation of lasting need, are important for evaluating how vulnerable Gordon really was to the attraction of government money.71 Furthermore, probably in 70 

Radicati, A Succinct History of Priesthood, pp. 58–59. Moreover, his Tacitus (1728–31) sold very well, ‘for the second volume was not published by subscription’ (see Gordon’s ‘Advertisement’ prefixed to the second edition). It is possibly during this time that he began planning his History of England, and anyone aspiring to write a general history was expected to have some sort of social standing and leisure as well as public experience. 71 

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

35

1724 though the date is not certain, he, ‘a man of no address and of a most ungain and awkward large person, with a monstrous belly and red face’, married for the second time. His bride, as we mentioned, was Anne Trenchard (d. 15 April 1783), ‘a lady of a very large fortune’, the widow of Trenchard and the daughter of Sir William Blackett, a wealthy Northumberland Jacobite. ‘Her family broke with her for marrying Gordon who had wrote so much for the Whig cause’, though his will reveals that Anne’s property was all settled on her in a pre-marriage agreement.72 The fact is that Walpole, who reacted to the Cato’s Letters offensive launched from the pages of the London Journal by demanding seizures, interrogations, and the destruction of the presses, and then proceeded 72 

Horace Walpole’s Correspondence, vol. 20 (New Haven: Yale University Press/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960), p. 167 (‘Letter to Mann, 2 August 1750’); vol. 15 (1951), pp. 293 (‘Walpole’s Anecdotes Relating to Dr Conyers Middleton’) and 311 (‘Extracts from William Cole’s Account of Conyers Middleton’). Often described as ‘a very large man, and corpulent’ in his later years (Nichols, Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, i, 709), Gordon was supposed to be the Silenus of Alexander Pope’s Dunciad (1728). A portrait of Gordon wearing a long curling wig was drawn by the elder Jonathan Richardson (1667–1745), one of his generation’s foremost portrait painters and one of the most influential art theorists in eighteenth-century Britain. The drawing, a sketch in black and red chalk on blue paper, was acquired by the British Museum in 1902 (location: British Roy PIIIa, registration number 1902,0822.38). Previous owners include Horace Walpole, the fourth Earl of Oxford, who bought it in 1772 at the sale of the younger Richardson’s collection. See the unpublished CroftMurray, ‘Catalogue of British Drawings’ (typescript in P&D); ‘The Print Room of the British Museum’, p. 134; Gibson-Wood, Jonathan Richardson, Art Theorist. Unfortunately the drawing is stuck down on a backing sheet and the verso cannot be seen. On the backing sheet below the centre of the drawing an inscription in brown ink by Horace Walpole reads ‘Gordon/Translator of Tacitus’. A very inaccurate six-line account of the sitter’s life is also recorded by Walpole on the backing sheet to the left below the image. The six lines read as follows: ‘It is said on the back of the drawing,/ that he was a Captain & Secretary to Glen/ Governor of S. Carolina. He married/ the Widow of Mr Trenchard, whom he/ assisted in Cato’s letters, & wrote the lives/ of Alexander 6th and Caesar Borgia’. The secretary (from 1741) to James Glen (Royal Governor to South Carolina), and the author of The Lives of Pope Alexander VI and his Son Caesar Borgia (1729), was Alexander Gordon (c. 1692–1754?), antiquary and opera singer (and from 1736 to 1739 also the secretary of the Society for the Encouragement of Learning). Art historian Anna Wells Rutledge noticed, in a letter to Edward Croft-Murray (dated 16 August 1947 and held among the latter’s papers at the British Museum), that Alexander Gordon was said to be ‘lean’ and Richardson’s Gordon was not. Croft-Murray also left his captioned sketch of Gordon’s ‘only known portrait’ in his diary for 1949 (1 October). I am indebted to Jenny Ramkalawon and Kim Sloan, Curators in the Department of Prints and Drawings at the British Museum, for providing me with essential information about the drawing. A well-known portrait of Anthony Collins hanging over the fireplace in the Boardroom at Leeds Castle is also ascribed to Jonathan Richardson.

36 Chapter I

to buy up and radically reshape the journal, 73 seemed then (after several attempts74) to win over Gordon by offering him a position first as Comptroller and then as Commissioner for the Wine Licences, a post that earned him three hundred pounds a year and ‘in the possession of which place he dy’d’. 75 A virulently satirical text, Bob-Lynn against Franck-Lynn (1732), alludes to him when introducing the character of Tom Starch, ‘that abominable pedant, who has been redeemed from necessity by several small legacies bequeathed to him for his infidelity. […] The productions of his brain were wonderful in their kind, almost beyond humane understanding; such a mixture of Greek and Latin quotations, interspers’d with Civil Law terms, Atheism, and Nonsense, in so stiff, so pedantick a Stile, were never before jumbled together’.76 An anonymous and biting survey of political writers published in 1740 even suggests that Gordon was involved in orchestrating pro-government propaganda: This Mr. G----n has been very lucky in Life; from being no better than a common amanuensis to Mr. Trenchard, he is now possest of a handsome fortune and a profitable post. […] He was the Author […] of a Translation of Tacitus, which has its admirers, and which he dedicated to Sir Robert Walpole, who nobly rewarded him. But see, Sir, what the effect of all these rewards was; as soon as the man got a competency, he even quietly sat down, and troubled his head no further about Politicks or Religion. […] One Arnold […] used to write a Paper called, The free Briton, in defence of the Administration. […] Sir R----t ordered, that most of the pieces of any consequence that came from his pen, should be revised by Mr. G----n before they were put to Press.77 73 

Realey, ‘The “London Journal” and its Authors’, pp. 13–19. See ‘John Trenchard to William Simpson [baron of the Exchequer], 25 October [1721]’, Lawrence, Univ. of Kansas, Spencer Research Libr., Trenchard–Simpson Corresp., MS G23. 75  [Ralph], The Case of Authors by Profession or Trade, pp. 37–38. 76  Bob-Lynn against Franck-Lynn, pp. 16, 27. 77  [Marforio, pseud.], An Historical View of the Principles, Characters, Persons, &c. of the Political Writers, pp. 13–14. See also Calendar of Treasury Books and Papers, ed. by Shaw, ii: ‘1731–1734’ (1898), pp. 516–25 (‘Warrants for Minor Appointments: 1733’) and iv: ‘1739– 1741’ (1901), pp. 419–33 (‘Warrants for Minor Appointments: 1740’); Hanson, Government and the Press 1695–1763, pp. 113–14; Urstad, Sir Robert’s Walpole’s Poets, pp. 82–90; Mitchell, ‘The Character of an Independent Whig’, pp. 66–71, 146–47. Furthermore, Gordon wrote his version of the parliamentary debates for the London Magazine. In that role, he had to deal with various members of both houses. According to a very informative article on parliamentary reporting that appeared in The Companion to the Newspaper on 1 April 1833, the reports in the London Magazine, though inaccurate, were much superior to those in the Gentleman’s Magazine (by William Guthrie, the author of a voluminous General History of England, from 74 

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

37

Walpole was acutely aware of the importance of the press as an instrument of propaganda. He financed eight daily papers (London Journal, British Journal, Daily Courant, Free Briton, Flying-Post, Hyp-Doctor, Corn-Cutter’s Journal, and the Daily Gazetteer), investing over fifty thousand pounds. ‘His’ most diligent and prolific writers were James Pitt, Ralph Courteville, John Henley, and William Arnall (Arnold). However, careful consideration of Walpole’s religious policy and Gordon’s writings from those years belies the image of a writer who all of a sudden sold out to power, precisely when he had least need to do so. 7. Unlike Stanhope, Walpole had little sympathy for the ideas of the ‘Old Whigs’,78 the radical faction of his party which, in 1719, had played a key role in the repeal of the Schism and Occasional Conformity Acts. Indeed, he feared that ministerial support for their reforms would lend credit to and reinforce the litany of the Tory opposition that the Church was in danger under the Whig government. In his efforts to undermine the traditional preference of the Church for the Tories, in the 1720s Walpole sought an accommodation with the Bishop of Lincoln, Edmund Gibson. In the twelve years that followed Gibson’s appointment as Bishop of London in 1724, he exercised a decisive influence on the government’s ecclesiastical policy, which was expressly designed to bring ‘the body of the Clergy and the two Universities, at least to be easy under a Whig Administration’.79 The agreement between Walpole and Gibson was that all the major ecclesiastical posts were to be filled by clerics ‘who were both firm ministerial Whig and unquestionably orthodox in their theology’,80 which had a powerfully reassuring effect on parish clergy and their congregations. The government thereby gained a greater hold over public opinion and important support for ministerial candidates during elections. For his part, Gibson requested that all the anticlerical measures proposed by the ‘Old Whigs’ should be blocked before they even came up for debate. It was only eight years later, and the Invasion of Julius Caesar, to the Revolution of 1688). Since 1738, because and in defiance of a ‘thundering edict’ forbidding the publication of any account of the parliamentary debates, the London Magazine continued publishing them under the title ‘Journal of the Proceedings and Debates of a Political Club’, giving Roman names to the speakers. The introductory piece (May, 1738), possibly by Gordon, is republished in Factions No More, ed. by Gunn, pp. 124–25. See also Hoover, Samuel Johnson’s Parliamentary Reporting, pp. 17, 62. 78  A small group consisting of no more than forty members in the Commons during the reign of George II. 79  Quoted by Sykes, Edmund Gibson, p. 408. 80  Kendrick, ‘Sir Robert Walpole, the Old Whigs and the Bishops’, p. 422.

38 Chapter I

only following the 1733 excise controversy (when Walpole’s attempt to reduce the burden of land tax and shift government revenues to other sources greatly weakened his majority), that the Old Whigs managed to introduce two of the most anti-clerical measures which had been proposed back in the time of the Long Parliament: the Church Courts Bill, designed to strip the ecclesiastical courts of their jurisdiction, and the Church Rates and Repairs Bill, which deprived the Church of its traditional role of supervising all ecclesiastical buildings and its authority in setting and collecting Churches rates and assessments. The defeat of a motion in the Lords on 1 June 1733 to censure the government for its handling of the South Sea directors’ estates was made possible by the decisive vote of the bishops, while in return ministers had to undertake to boycott measures that were not to the liking of the Anglican hierarchy. A further occasion of conflict was the request made to Walpole by Lord Talbot, the new Lord Chancellor (and the son of the late Bishop of Durham, a well-known patron of Latitudinarian clergy), to assign the bishopric of Gloucester to one of his protégés, Dr Thomas Rundle, whom Gibson disliked for his liberal (and Arian) positions.81 Talbot turned to Gordon, asking him to publicly praise Rundle in a pamphlet ‘as a man of sense and conversation’. In 1734 Gordon unhesitatingly published A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Codex (‘Codex’ being the nickname Gibson had acquired on account of a learned study of canonical law he had published in 1713): It must be admitted that nothing can be more cruel, dishonest, and detestable, than to defame an innocent man, and to fix, by malicious arts, an ill fame upon him, in order to make him lose his preferment. But there are views and designs which may be the motives of such an attempt, and which will make it infinitely more alarming than any hardship done to a single person. There may be the project of bringing all promotions in the Church into the hands of a few ambitious arbitrary Churchmen (p. 11).

Gibson furiously requested, but in vain, that legal proceedings should be taken against the author of the pamphlet on the grounds of sedition.82 Walpole decided 81 

The ‘Rundle Crisis’ of 1733–35 surely favoured the spread of The Old Whig: Or, Consistent Protestant, an anticlerical weekly newspaper that ran anonymously written essays (mainly by dissenters) in 160 issues between March 1735 and March 1738. Thomas Gordon is listed among its subscribers in the first of the two bound volumes of the first 103 issues of the paper published in 1739. See Gerrard, The Patriot Opposition to Walpole, pp. 22–34; Thomson, ‘Popery, Politics, and Private Judgement’; Kadane, ‘Anti-Trinitarianism and the Republican Tradition’, pp. 45–46. 82  Just a few years earlier, in 1725, Gibson had convinced the Attorney-General, Philip Yorke, to incriminate Thomas Woolston on charges of blasphemy for having published Moderator between an Infidel and an Apostate. In the same year Gibson had consecrated the parish church of Saint George, ‘the London Temple of Hymen’ in Hanover Square. When Collins died in 1731,

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

39

once again to satisfy Gibson, but, to placate the irritated Chancellor, appointed Rundle to be Bishop of Londonderry and assigned the English bishoprics of Gloucester and Bristol to two of Talbot’s other protégés. In a clumsy attempt to stem the discontent of the dissenters without alarming the Anglican hierarchy, in 1736 Walpole decided not to block discussion of the Mortmain Bill (designed to prevent the alienation of lands by dying persons to charitable uses ‘to the disherison of their lawful heirs’) and of the Quakers’ Tithe Bill (which transferred full jurisdiction over tithes not paid by the Quakers from the ecclesiastical courts to the J.P.s). Even though a motion presented by the ‘Old Whigs’ for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts was rejected by the Commons around about the same time, the bishops decided unanimously to write circular letters to their clergy advising them to petition parliament against the imminent discussion of the Quakers’ Bill. Walpole was not informed, which led to Gibson being immediately sacked as ecclesiastical minister. The Quakers’ Tithe Bill was defeated by fiftyfour votes to thirty-five, partly due to the opposition of Lord Chancellor Talbot and Lord Chief Justice Hardwicke, who, although hostile to Gibson, were against increasing the authority and jurisdiction of the Justices of the Peace, ‘since these officials were virtually unlearned in the law’. The 1736 crisis convinced Walpole to prevent future parliamentary discussion of any further anti-clerical measure (with the exception, in 1739, of another motion for the repeal of the Test Act, in that it gave him a chance to show his adherence to the established Church). In December 1736 he instructed his supporters that ‘the clergy were not to be attacked’.83 Gordon did not stop writing and publishing in these years. Some of the works he produced after Trenchard’s death have already been mentioned. It is worth looking here at other ones in which he clearly opposed the government’s ecclesiastical policies. In Examination of the […] Bishop of Chichester’s Sermon preached before the Lords (1732) Gordon reacted to the complaint of Bishop Francis Hare (one of the opponents of the Quakers’ Tithe Bill in 1736) that the he was buried ‘in the new burying ground belonging to St George’s […] it being his particular desire not to be buried in any church’ (The Weekly Medley and Literal Journal, Saturday, 27 December 1729). His numerous manuscripts, which he had entrusted to Pierre Des Maizeaux, were sold by the latter to Collins’s widow, Elizabeth, for fifty guineas. She seems then to have actually lent them to Gibson, of all persons, who destroyed them (but presumably only part of them, given that William Henry Thomlinson, vicar of Rettendon, Essex, who died in 1775, inherited Collins’s manuscripts from the freethinker’s widow in her will, although they are not mentioned in Thomlinson’s own will and cannot be traced). See Pope, Literary Correspondence, Volume the Fourth, pp. 29–35; Disraeli, ‘Of Des Maizeaux’; Collins, The Correspondence, ed. by Dybikowski, pp. 32, 364–70; Paulson, Hogarth’s Harlot, pp. 47–52, 76–82. 83  Kendrick, ‘Sir Robert Walpole, the Old Whigs and the Bishops’, pp. 444–45.

40 Chapter I

Church was in danger and besieged by deists, atheists, and republicans, saying: ‘To be followers of Christ is the best choice, and the sure road to happiness: But to follow priests and bigots in most countries, and in most of their ways, is not to follow Christ, or Happiness, or common Sense.’ 84 That same year, he wrote the Vindication of the Quakers, or, An Answer to the Bishop of L[ichfield]’s Charge Against Them. The text is significant first of all because it continued Gordon’s long-running polemical dispute with the Anglican hierarchy. Secondly, it offered a sympathetic representation of the Quakers (‘What [they] call the Spirit of God in them [is] what I call the Reason of our minds […] by which all doctrines, opinions, and books in the world, must be tried’). And it also contains some clarification of what Gordon understood by deism (apparently a philosophical religion accessible to a select minority) and true religion (in other words, social virtue). Gordon excludes the possibility that the founders and leaders of the Quakers were deists (‘for that’s the Word now; all men are Deists who are against Ecclesiastical Power’), in that ‘some of these founders were without learning, and without reading; they had conversed only with the lower sort of people’. Alluding though to the existence of circles where ‘Churchmen and Dissenters, Believers and Unbelievers, Free-thinkers, Half-thinkers, and No-thinkers, all most Christianly meet together’, he concludes that ‘this is the only way to work off their prejudices against each other: And if it don’t make them nominal, it will make them real Christians’. The Gentlemen of this Club know that ‘these mix’d Meetings is the best way of finding out Truth; and they also know, that as God distinguishes all men by their Actions, so they ought to place the Whole of Religion in social Virtue, and pay no regard at all to Opinions’. Dr Codex (Gibson) returns in the role of Solicitor General in the satirical representation of the trial for Arianism of William Whiston, first published in 1734. The comic version of the trial depicts the judge, Lord Chief Justice Reason, agreeing with the defendant that the jury — composed, at Gibson’s suggestion, of ‘three Irish Jesuits, three Welsh Nonjurers, three Scotch Rebels, the Chaplain of Newgate and the Pope’s Pimp’ — cannot guarantee a fair trial. He then calls for another jury to be formed, with the recommendation to ensure ‘that no parson 84 

Gordon, An Examination of the Facts and Reasonings in the Lord Bishop of Chichester’s Sermon, pp. 46–61. Cf. Trenchard and Gordon, Cato’s Letters, ed. by Hamowy, nos 44 and 72, and Gordon, History of England, fol. 169r: ‘It has been the general course and curse of the world, that when any profit could be made of religion, all religion was turned into profit; yet all men were vilified and cursed who discovered, much more who maintained, this glaring truth. Whilst they who belied the Deity, were saints; they who exposed the lye, and vindicated the Deity, were atheists’. See also fols 211v, 261r.

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

41

creeps into it’. Whiston calls upon a Turk, Mustapha Ben Hamet, the apostles Peter and Paul, and the evangelists to testify on his behalf. But what moves the jurors, and the readers, above all is the bewilderment of the apostle Peter, the humble fisherman, as he listens to the arguments of the Trinitarian theologian: This is Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity; Three in One, and One in Three; not Three but One; nor One, but Three. The First is First, the Second is from the First, and the Third is from the Second and the First. The First is not before the Second, nor the Second before the Third: But the First is First; the Second is First, and the Third is First; neither confounding nor dividing, One and Three, or Three and One. Now this is the Catholic faith, which except a Man believe faithfully, he shall perish everlastingly.

Peter replies unhesitatingly that ‘I am so far from being of your opinion, that, I profess, I don’t understand you. […] How indifferent soever these great Doctors may think of my understanding, Christ did not think me unworthy of matters of the greatest importance’. The satirical genre adopted for this text does not impinge upon the rigour of Gordon’s journalistic commitment. His voice is part of a Protestant anticlerical tradition ‘which surfaced in almost every country where an orthodox clergy supervised a “dominant” church’: Schoock and Bayle in the Dutch Republic, Thomasius in Prussia, Tindal and De la Roche in England, and Barbeyrac in Lausanne and Groningen. It insisted on the necessity of not granting the clergy separate jurisdiction from that of the state, and that ‘they should act and behave as all other subjects of the commonwealth were expected to act and behave’.85 Importantly, in 1722 Gordon had translated part of the preface by Barbeyrac to Pufendorf ’s Droit de la nature et des gens under the ominous title The Spirit of the Ecclesiasticks of All Sects and Ages, which argues that ‘morality is the daughter of religion, that she keeps even pace with her, and that the perfection of morality is the measure of the perfection of religion’.86 85 

Van Eijnatten, ‘Swiss Anticlericalism in the United Provinces’. Gordon’s selective reading may have stemmed from a need for simplification, perhaps due to his not having the conceptual finesse and skills to fully grasp Barbeyrac’s smoothing out of Pufendorf ’s thought. But it is also possible, indeed more likely, that it was a deliberately opportunistic reading, in that it enabled him to spread an authoritative attack against the authority of the Church Fathers without, however, touching on Barbeyrac’s attempt to re-establish a natural theology. Furthermore, as an anti-clerical protégé of the Groningen magistracy, Barbeyrac limited the right to resist tyranny to the political leadership, while ‘he did not dispute the idea of a dominant or public religion’ (Van Eijnatten, ‘The Church Fathers Assessed’). Gordon, on the other hand, wanted all ecclesiastic interference to be eliminated from 86 

42 Chapter I

In the same frenetically busy years the seemingly tireless Gordon also produced his popular translations of Tacitus, Sallust, and Cicero (with the Orations against Catiline juxtaposed with Sallust’s Conspiracy of Catiline), introducing each of the published volumes with lengthy ‘Political Discourses’. These alone would suffice to disprove the idea that he had opted for a more private or merely academic existence. Moreover, in 1747 Gordon published an Essay on Government, dedicated to Sir Robert King (1724–55),87 the first and last Baron Kingsborough, M.P. for Boyle between 1744 and 1748, and Grand Master of the Irish Freemasons from 1749 to 1750.88 In it he investigates the origins of political society and takes issue with some of the main natural law theorists, Pufendorf, Barbeyrac, and Grotius, over the duty of subjects to obey a tyrannical king or of slaves to obey their master. First of all, he rebuts the Aristotelian assumption that societies are formed as a result of a ‘natural appetite of Mankind to live in a civil state’. He then also dissents from the theory advanced by Barbeyrac and by another of Pufendorf ’s commentators, Gottlieb Gerhard Titius, who claimed that the foundation of states is to be attributed to an act of force, and that the first form of government was monarchical and was set up by Nimrod.89 Gordon excludes the plausibility and binding nature of a despotic origin to government on the grounds that it is contrary to the law of nature, which regards as null and void all contracts undersigned ‘through an immediate fear of an impending danger’ (pp. 3, 4) with the party responsible for creating that fear. According to Gordon, as man’s nature is dominated by his appetites and passions, the principal motive inducing human beings to form a government is reciprocal fear, the fear that a neighbour may attack or harm their property or family. The form of government is not in itself essential, ‘for those who administer the governement are always liable to the orders of their Constituents. […] The executive magistrate depends not on a transfer of the intire Right of the People, but a delegation of some particular branches of those rights’ (pp. 38–39). Gordon’s conclusion is unequivocal: No one pretends to say, that the supreme power is lodged in such a manner in the hands of the People that they are always to execute it, (though the oftner they do the secular and moral spheres. If Barbeyrac’s translation of Pufendorf was an eclectic process, resulting in a composite text that was part Pufendorf and part Barbeyrac, Gordon’s selective translation of Barbeyrac also represented an example of adaptation and ‘cultural translating’. See Champion, The Pillars of Priestcraft Shaken, pp. 218–19; Tuck, ‘The “Modern” Theory of Natural Law’. See also Grey, The Spirit of Infidelity Detected. 87  The dedication is signed and dated at the Middle Temple, 1 November 1747. 88  ‘Kingsborough’, p. 293. 89  Titius, Observationes in Samuelis L. B. de Pufendorf.

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

43

the better) but all that is contended for, is that they should have such a Supremacy, as may be a Check on the executive Magistrate, and prevent him from doing any thing exceeds the Limits of the Commission they have instructed him with, and at the same time, call him to account, and punish him for his misdeeds (p. 45).

After a brief section on the conformity to a complex and numerous society of a mixed government of kings, lords, and commons, with the king viewed as the trustee of executive power, and after having mocked those who believe monarchic power to be a divine institution, Gordon focuses in the final part of his essay on the theme of slavery. He takes issue with Grotius for upholding the legitimacy of slavery imposed by force as the lesser of two evils compared to physical elimination, or as a natural predisposition in some human beings, and, by analogy, in some peoples (‘some men are by nature slaves, i.e. fit for slavery; so some people are fitter to be governed than to govern’).90 Gordon points out that in both Roman and Jewish law slavery was governed by a contract binding the master to provide the slave with food and shelter and to answer to the law for the mistreatment or killing of the slave. Sustaining the impunity of the master when he causes injury to the slave results, according to Gordon, in a logical incongruence, in that one cannot talk of injury without recognizing the existence of a violated law. In other words, ‘no Man can receive an injury unless he before is possessed of a Right’. Therefore, ‘if a Master may injure his Slave, consequently the latter must have a Right; if he has a Right over any object, he has an equal Right to protect it against any aggressor, consequently may resist his Master if he attacks him in any of those rights’ (p. 35). Most of Gordon’s final works,91 written in a strongly anti-Jacobite vein, found their way into the fourth volume of the seventh edition (1747) of the Independent 90  An interesting article recently published in the Companion to African-American Philosophy (Allen and Pope, ‘Social Contract Theory’) identifies distinctly contractarian ‘justifications’ for black slavery found in antebellum court opinions: ‘Three lines of contractarian argument are identified: the first justifies permitting slavery on the ground that the US Constitution is a white-only social contract under which blacks are not free and equal (more specifically slaves were excluded as parties to the pactum subjectionis); the second justifies slavery on the ground that death to the vanquished is a just consequence of war; and that slavery is a rationally preferable fate to death; the third justifies permitting slavery on the ground that slavery is blacks’ best deal for escaping the state of nature, given (putative) black inferiority’. 91  An overtly pro-Hanoverian and anti-French tract, Warning to the Whigs (for James Roberts in 1744), was never included in any collection of Gordon’s works (Gordon, Warning to the Whigs, printed). Written in the aftermath of the Battle of Dettingen (1743), in which the British forces, personally led by King George II, had defeated a French army, the text was judged in the Monthly Review (IV, p. 316) ‘the best political tract that Mr. Gordon ever

44 Chapter I

Whig (separately republished in Dublin in 174892) and an anthology collection of Essays against Popery, Slavery and Arbitrary Power. Posthumous collections of his writings include A Cordial for Low Spirits, a miscellaneous collection in three volumes (1751) edited by Richard Barron (d. 1766),93 and A Collection of Tracts by the late John Trenchard, Esq., and Thomas Gordon, Esq., printed in 1751 in two volumes (for F. Cogan, bookseller in Fleet-street) and dedicated by the editor to William Hippisley, Trenchard’s heir.94 wrote’. In the same issue of that literary journal, Gordon is also credited with having written a further political tract, An Appeal to the Unprejudiced (1739), defending the Convention of Pardo, a fragile and much-contested treaty between Great Britain and Spain designed to find a diplomatic solution to smuggling issues. In the sixth volume of the Monthly Review (IV, p. 311), an English translation ‘by Mr. Gordon’ of the comedies of Terence (printed in London for Thomas Longman in 1752) is also mentioned, though in belittling terms. Although The Mirror of Taste, and Dramatic Censor, a well-known monthly theatrical journal printed in Philadelphia (4 vols, 1810–11), clarifies that this Gordon was ‘not Thomas Gordon, the translator of Tacitus’ (i, 38), The Comedies of Terence, Translated into English Prose are listed as a posthumous work in Séguin, A Bibliography of Thomas Gordon (p. 62). 92  Gordon, A Collection of Papers. This volume includes, amongst others, ‘The Religion of the Multitude rarely the effect of Examination and Inquiry, but of Accident and Habit’; ‘The Free Use of Reason the Best Cure for Bigotry, and the Violence of Enthusiasm’; and a very lively ‘Dialogue between a noble Convert and his late Confessor’: ‘C[onfessor]’. How is Obstinacy to be conquered? L[ord]. By Persuasion, or not at all. But what you often call Obstinacy, I call Reason and Piety. With you all steady Protestants are obstinate Hereticks. […] Mahomet’s Church […] is less bloody. She tolerates all sects, even all sects of Christians; and you destroy all, or terrify them into hypocrites, many into atheism; such especially, who judging of all Religion by yours, rather than believe such a chaos of nonsense, contradictions, pride, lust and rapine, fraud and cruelty, to be from God, conclude that there is none’ (pp. 89, 91). 93  The first volume was published separately in October 1750 for Ralph Griffiths (see The Monthly Review for the same month). Two more volumes and the second edition of the first volume were published the following year, again for Griffiths. A third impression in three volumes, revised and improved, appeared in 1763 for D. Wilson and Isaac Fell. Barron (or Baron) had been a friend of Gordon (and also of Thomas Hollis, the prominent republican and antiquarian, whom he helped in collecting works defending seventeenth-century republicanism). In the prefaces to the second volume of the Cordial and to the second edition of its first volume, Barron reassures the reader of Gordon’s paternity of his reprints by saying that he had had access to a copy of Gordon’s pamphlets bearing annotations in the Author’s hand and also to the library catalogue of Anthony Collins (‘the intimate Friend of, and Fellowlabourer with, Mr. Gordon, in the Cause of Liberty’). Ralph Griffiths, for many years the editor of the Monthly Review, was formally charged with obscenity in 1749 for having published John Cleland’s notorious novel Fanny Hill, or, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure. 94  This collection includes, amongst several other better-known pieces by Gordon, ‘A True Account of a Revelation lately discover’d to Jeremiah van Husen’ (1719); ‘A Learned

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

45

Gordon’s very last piece of writing, A Letter of Consolation and Counsel to the Good People of England, occasioned by the late earthquake (published just a few weeks before his death), was inspired (as previously noted) by a series of minor earthquakes that hit London in 1750. Curiously, the two earthquakes occurred on 8 February95 and 8 March, arousing the hysterical expectation that a new and devastating earthquake would hit London on 8 April, which was Palm Sunday. Furthermore, the year fell exactly in the middle of the century, something that could not be ignored by the millenarianists. On Friday, 6 April, a veritable exodus began out into the countryside. The following day London appeared to be a ghost city. Nothing happened on Sunday: Providence had been merciful. But those nights made a lasting impression on the imagination and memory of the English. The Student, a monthly periodical produced by the undergraduates of Cambridge and Oxford, published for months a section entitled ‘Seasonable Reflections on the Late Earthquakes’. An ill-boding prophet published A Letter of Congratulation from the Devil to the Inhabitants of London and Westminster on their conduct before, at and after, the late earthquakes. An anonymous writer suggested digging a big hole in the ground where all penitents might find refuge.96 However, it was a letter from the Bishop of London that touched a deep chord in the majority of Dissertation upon Old Women, Male and Female, Spiritual and Temporal in all Ages, whether in Church, State, or Exchange-Alley; very seasonable to be read at all Times, but especially at these Times’ (1720); ‘A Letter to a Leading Great Man, concerning the Rights of the People to petition, and the Reasonableness of complying with such Petitions’ (1720); and ‘The Nature and Weight of the taxes of the Nation; shewing that by the Continuance of heavy Taxes and Impositions; and the Misapplication of Public Money, Trade is destroy’d, the Poor increased; and the Miseries and Misfortunes of the whole Kingdom demand the Consideration of the Freeholders of Great Britain, at the ensuing Election’ (1722). A further tract, entitled ‘A Serious Expostulation with the Bishop of London on his Letter to the clergy and people of London’ [on occasion of the late earthquakes, by Richard Glover], is here erroneously ascribed to Gordon (see The Monthly Review, iv, 1750–51, p. 316). 95  On the same day, in his journal, John Wesley (1703–91), the founder of Methodism, wrote: ‘February Thur. 8 [1750] — It was about a quarter after twelve, that the earthquake began at the skirts of the town. […] There were three distinct shakes, or wavings to and fro, attended with an hoarse, rumbling noise, like thunder. How gently does God deal with this nation! O that our repentance may prevent heavier marks of his displeasure!’ In turn, his brother Charles (1707–88) preached a sermon entitled The Cause and Cure of Earthquakes (1750): ‘That God is himself the Author, and sin the moral cause, of earthquakes (whatever the natural cause may be) cannot be denied by any who believe the Scriptures. […] The Lord was in the earthquake and put a solemn question to thy conscience: “Are you ready to die?”’ See Israel, Democratic Enlightenment, pp. 39–55. 96  Rousseau, ‘The London Earthquakes of 1750’, pp. 444–46.

46 Chapter I

Londoners. Ten thousand copies were sold in the first two days. There followed, in the same year, a reprint of 52,000 copies, plus three further editions in London and one in Glasgow. Another edition appeared in 1755. Sherlock had no doubt that the recent earthquakes were explicit warnings from God: It is every Man’s Duty, and it is mine to call upon you, to give Attention to all the Warnings which God in his Mercy affords to a sinful People. […] Thoughtless or hardened Sinners may be deaf to these Calls; and Little Philosophers, who see a little, and but very little into natural Causes, may think they see enough to account for what happens, without calling in the Aid and Assistance of a special providence; nor considering, that God who made all Things, never put any Thing out of his own Power, but has all Nature under Command to serve his Purposes in the Government of the World. […] As to You my Brethren of the Clergy, who share with me the Care of the Souls in these populous Cities, let me exhort you […] to awake the People […] and make them see their own Danger. […] Tell them […] that unless they repent, they must perish.97

So far there is nothing new here. Nor does Sherlock’s Letter lack the customary condemnation of a variety of sexual and social behaviours, considered deviant and belonging to the growing Catholic proselytism. But as the Letter continues, two or three elements emerge that deserve attention. Sherlock traces God’s anger to the prolific production, in London, of printed works dealing with philosophical or erotic themes, and to the daily staging of non-religious plays, what’s more, during Lent. The earth had shaken, then, because censorship was ineffective; because in London there were people who read and wrote about philosophy, and did not shun the theatre or opera in Lent. It was in response to this threatening letter by Bishop Sherlock, and to his ‘retribution theology’, that Gordon wrote his anonymous consolatory letter:98 97  Sherlock, A Letter from the Lord Bishop, pp. 4, 12–13. In Cicero’s Cato Maior de senectute, the elder Cato calls the Epicureans ‘minute philosophers’. Sir Richard Steele, in Tatler 135, and George Berkeley in Alciphron, first applied Cicero’s epithet to the modern free-thinkers. In the second, 1685, edition of his Cogitationes rationales they had been derogatorily labelled as ‘intellectuli et conceptiuncularum suarum adoratores’ (‘admirers of their intellectual paucity and miserable ideas’) by the prominent mystic Pierre Poiret, one of the French detractors of Martin Clifford’s deistic Treatise of Humane Reason. 98  Gordon, A Letter of Consolation and Counsel. According to Rousseau, ‘The London Earthquakes of 1750’ (p. 450), the attribution of this Letter to Gordon recurs in an eighteenthcentury hand on the frontispiece of two copies, held in the British Library and in Harvard College Library. We might add that the copy in the British Library appears to be an extract from the first volume of Gordon and others, The Pillars of Priestcraft and Orthodoxy Shaken, ed. by Barron (1752), another miscellaneous collection of anticlerical tracts edited by Richard

Thomas Gordon: An Intellectual Biography of a ‘Religious Atheist’

47

Earthquakes […] are produced from natural causes. […] Supernatural causes are only sought and urged by visionaries, dealers in judgments, and by sharpers in theology, such as pretend to foretell wrath to come, and to avert it; nay, some of them have threatened to bring it. […] No wonder that they treat the most learned and able Inquirers into the Powers of Nature, as little Philosophers; as Men who would utterly spoil and disgrace the Theory of Judgments, and sink the solemn Character of Judgment-mongers. […] To say, that in all nations are sins enow to merit and invite judgments, would imply, that every day calls for judgments upon every sinner; and thus every pot of ale too much, and every idle word, invites an earthquake to swallow every man who drinks and every idle woman which talks.

The tone is derisive, but the arguments are serious, in that they relate to the freedom of individuals. While Bishop Sherlock claims ‘that a city without Religion, can never be a safe place where to live’, Gordon states ‘that true Religion cannot prevail, nay can hardly subsist, in a city where all Religions are not tolerated. […] Morality is Religion, and every Man truly religious will be for tolerating every Religion; and, whatever any Man thinks, Religion is Religion to that Man’. Gordon astutely recalls how Sherlock had himself once described revealed Christian religion as a republication of natural religion,99 an assertion that became celebrated, quite irrespective of Sherlock’s own wishes, as the title of a deistic text (1730) by the free-thinker Matthew Tindal. ‘Agreeably therefore Barron (d. 1766) and printed for Ralph Griffiths, where Gordon’s authorship is openly stated (see Gordon and others, The Pillars of Priestcraft and Orthodoxy Shaken, ed. by Barron, ‘Preface’, pp. xv–xvi and The Monthly Review, IV, 1750–51, p. 316. Above all, though, it is the appearance, on page 11, of an intertextual self-citation from an unpublished text by Gordon (Gordon, History of England, fol. 394r), that can reassure us of Gordon’s paternity of the work. The Letter also contains at least one further self-citation, on page 32, from a text Gordon published for the first time in 1732 (Gordon, An Examination of the Facts and Reasonings in the Lord Bishop of Chichester’s Sermon). To be sure, the whole Letter is studded with exhortations — a characteristic feature of Gordon’s whole output — to beware ecclesiastical falsehoods designed to fuel popular fears solely in order to preserve and consolidate iniquitous socio-economic hierarchies. The second of the two writings ascribed to Gordon and reprinted in Gordon and others, The Pillars of Priestcraft and Orthodoxy Shaken, ed. by Barron was A Seasonable Apology for Father Francis, Chaplain to Prince Prettyman, the Catholick ..., a pamphlet (first printed in 1723 in a slightly different version) aimed at Francis Atterbury (1662–1732), the Nonjuring Bishop of Rochester, who left England in 1723, never to return, after being stripped of all his ecclesiastical offices and banished. An enlarged four-volume edition of the Pillars, which also included tracts by Benjamin Hoadly, was prepared by him and published in 1768 for the benefit of his widow and three children. 99  Sherlock made his comments in a sermon to the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts on 17 February 1715. It was printed in London for J. Pemberton the following year (see p. 13).

48 Chapter I

to his Lordship’s doctrine’, Gordon concludes, ‘whatever is not warranted by Reason, ought not to be received as Religion! A noble Principle! […] Let us all live good lives, and then we need not fear death nor earthquakes’. In 1732 Gordon had summed up effectively his commitment to the principle of the primacy of law (which he claimed to be historically grounded on an ancient constitutional pact) and his appraisal of an undogmatic Christianity that made no distinction between the irrational and the suprarational: For the rule and guide of my Politicks, have the Constitution and History of England; and in my Religion, I am governed by the Bible and common sense. He who walks by these rules walks securely; and he who follows the arbitrary notions, sophistical distinctions, and bare averments of men, is sure to be deceived, at least can never know that he is not.100

100 

Gordon, A Sermon Preached before the Learned Society of Lincoln’s Inn, p. 4.

Chapter II

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’: Anticlericalism, Republicanism, and Sinophilia in Walpolean England It is certain, that the Chineses have converted the Jesuits, who have at least civilly met these obstinate Heathens half-way, and gone roundly into ­Paganism, to make the Pagans good Catholics: an union not unnatural; only I am sorry that the peaceable heathenism of Confucius should be debauched by the barbarous Spirit of Popery, which has not only from the beginning adopted the ancient Gentile Idolatry, but disgraced it by cruelty.1

F

ollowing up on the valuable scholarly endeavours of missionaries, especially those of the Society of Jesus, to convey to Europe a benevolent and friendly view of the non-Western world, in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe extraordinary efforts were made to produce general appraisals of Indian, Japanese, and, most importantly, Chinese thought. Starting with the emphatic Sinophilia of the Dutch deist Isaac Vossius (1618–89), son of the more famous Gerard Vossius, a number of Western scholars (including William Temple, Matthew Tindal, Anthony Collins, Pierre Bayle, Nicolas Fréret, Jean-Baptiste de Boyer d’Argens, Christian Wolff, and Heinrich Gottlieb von Justi) expressed great admiration for China and classical Chinese thought, culminating, in the mid-eighteenth century, with Voltaire’s ‘loud praise for China and the Chinese’.2 1 

Gordon, ‘Of the Strange Force of Education’, in Trenchard and Gordon, The Independent Whig (1816), III, no. 65, pp. 40-41. 2  In the course of the eighteenth century, however, the somewhat superficial admiration gave way to disenchantment, dismissive racial attitudes, and a new representation of China as a stagnant, despotic, and backward society (with Commodore George Anson’s 1749 critical account of the reception he was given at Canton commonly seen as the beginning of a major

50

Chapter II

China, so cultivated, so uninterested in Christianity, was particularly appealing for being in practice governed by a philosopher king with the assistance of ‘literati’, a scholar-class appointed on the basis of intellectual merit.3 Above all, religious toleration in non-Christian civilizations was first highlighted in order to expose the iniquity of European political and ecclesiastical power structures and to delegitimize every authority which presumed to infringe upon the liberty of conscience, and the free determination and expression of individual convictions. In one of the ‘Political Discourses’ introducing his English translation of Sallust’s Works (1744), Thomas Gordon asks rhetorically: Can a rational Chinese think, that the Almighty and Impartial Being more readily hears a prayer made by one man, than the same prayer made by another man; that he regards coats, or colours, or names, or distinctions, or has given power to particular men to prevail with himself in behalf of all the rest (just as a weak prince does to his mistress, or his barber); though these particular men can in no earthly or visible thing shew, that they have any power, or any faculties, superior to those of the most ordinary men; when the morals of the most ordinary men are, indeed, generally b­ etter shift in Western attitudes to China). Western views of China in the early modern period have been widely discussed in various important studies. To cite just a very few: Pinot, La Chine et la formation de l’esprit philosophique; Appleton, A Cycle of Cathay; Menzel, ‘The Sinophilism of J. H. G. Justi’; Rowbotham, Missionary and Mandarin; Armogathe, ‘Voltaire et la Chine’; Les rapports entre la Chine et l’Europe; Marshall and Williams, The Great Map of Mankind; Lai, ‘The Linking of Spinoza to Chinese Thought’; Etiemble, L’Europe chinoise; Mungello, Curious Land: Jesuit Accommodation; Mungello, The Great Encounter of China and the West; China and Europe: Images and Influences, ed. by Lee; Lach, Asia in the Making of Europe; The Vision of China, ed. by Hsia; Spence, The Chan’s Great Continent; McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods, Chapter 12, pp. 207-16; Larrimore, ‘Orientalism and Antivoluntarism’; Facing Each Other, ed. by Pagden; Minuti, Orientalismo e idee di tolleranza; Louden, ‘“What Does Heaven Say?”’; Perkins, Leibniz and China; Rubiés, ‘The Concept of Cultural Dialogue’; Israel, Enlightenment Contested, pp. 640–62; The Anthropology of the Enlightenment, ed. by Wolff and Cipolloni; Hunt, Jacob, and Mijnhardt, The Book that Changed Europe; Stroumsa, A New Science, Chapter 7, pp. 145-51; Roetz, ‘The Influence of Foreign Knowledge’. 3  An emblematic anecdote is found in the fourth volume (first published in 1747) of Trenchard and Gordon, The Independent Whig (‘The passionate and ridiculous application of Divine Judgments, by visionary, selfish, and factious Spirits. It is urged for Argument where Reason is wanting’): ‘An Emperor of China was superstitiously alarmed to see a Mulberry-Tree in his garden covered with leaves in the space of seven days; then wither and lose them all, in three days more. The solemn prophesying Bigots about him, increased his Panic with a doleful Tale of terrible Judgments to ensue. His Minister, to whom he communicated his fears, and the terrible presages of his pious fortune-tellers, calmed his mind with the argument of an honest and a rational man: “Virtue, said he, rules all presages, and renders them good or evil: Govern your subjects with equity, and nothing can shake your repose”’.

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

51

than theirs, and when such morals are the only recommendation of men in society? For, God wants no humane help, no more than he does grimace and flattery.4

In Walpolean England, the period between 1721 and 1742 dominated by the towering but controversial figure of the prime minister Robert Walpole,5 ‘the argument from the Chinese’, namely, the admiring observation that there existed a prosperous and densely populated kingdom not inscribable within a single faith, was not only adopted frequently in religious controversies when calling for a broader and more coherent policy on toleration and a curb on the prerogatives of the Anglican hierarchy,6 but was also commonly used in the bitter political polemic waged against the ministry by the opposition press. Prolific and mostly obscure journalists who devoted themselves untiringly to the task of unmasking the bribery, the far-from-noble agreements with the bishops, and the authoritarian trend of the Walpole administration and to re-establishing what they believed to be the authentic and original concepts of the British constitution repeatedly cited the Chinese administrative system as a model. Above all, they admired the civil examinations — extremely tough tests for the recruitment of bureaucrats — and the public censors, who kept watch over the legitimacy of what the emperor and his ministers did in the exercising of their powers. Chinese tales, short and moral, increasingly found their way into periodical essays. 4 

Gordon, ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’, Disc. ix (‘Of the Mutability of Government’), Sect. vi (‘The Profession of the Missionaries Abroad; how notoriously insincere, and contradictory to their Tenets and Practices at home’), p. 181. 5  Walpole’s position as prime minister was consolidated by his response to the Atterbury Plot, a Jacobite conspiracy discovered in April 1722. He exploited the episode to brand all Tories as Jacobites, and the ensuing public sentiment not only gave Walpole a secure hold on the ministry, but effectively kept the Tories out of office until 1770. Following the plot, Walpole became the single most influential politician in England for twenty years (commonly labelled as ‘the Robinocracy’), during which time he was often accused of bribery and corruption in his efforts to retain power. After being forced into war with Spain in 1739, his grip on the Commons slackened. 6  Western supporters of non-Vulgate chronologies and searchers for a universal language were also deeply interested in China’s long chronology, which seemed to extend to before the orthodox dating of the Flood or even the Creation. Significantly, in 1699 the English architect and antiquarian John Webb (1611–72) had hypothesized, on the basis of parallels drawn by Martino Martini, a Jesuit missionary to China, between the Biblical Flood and a flood which occurred in the time of the famous sage ruler Yao, that ‘Noah and Yao were identical and that the Flood was worldwide’. According to Webb, peoples from the East not coming to Babel ‘included the ancestors of the Chinese, who were thereby able to preserve the Primitive Language’ (Mungello, The Great Encounter of China and the West, p. 94; Mungello, Curious Land: Jesuit Accommodation, Chapter 6, 174-207.

Chapter II

52

Eustace Budgell (1686–1737), the hapless and rancorous editor of the weekly pamphlet The Bee, who had in vain petitioned George II (and the Queen) for Walpole’s removal (and who committed suicide, overwhelmed by debts and scandals), depicted the Chinese emperor as an enlightened sovereign who not only accepted but actually encouraged loyal opposition and who listened to the complaints of even his most humble subjects.7 Lord Chesterfield, in Fog’s Weekly Journal, reported that tickling of the ears was one of the most widely appreciated sensations in China. He then went on to observe that the same custom was common in England, ‘only there the titillation is vocal, whereas in China it is manual’: he was clearly alluding to servile, mercenary journalists who adulated the prime minister in exchange for fees and pensions. And perhaps the most wellknown opposition newspaper of the time, The Craftsman, one of whose most regular and pugnacious contributors was Bolingbroke, declared the urgency (in the issue of 20 October 1739) of introducing into England the Chinese system of public censure, ‘this most gentle and constitutional method of addressing the Throne for redress’. Samuel Johnson, in the first (1738) of his two interventions on China published in the Gentleman’s Magazine (in which he praised its editor Edward Cave for having encouraged the production of an accurate English translation of the Description de la Chine by Jean-Baptiste du Halde), also voiced his profound admiration for the many ‘honest Ministers’ in China who ‘have adventured to admonish the Emperors of any deviation from the laws of their country, or any error in their conduct, that has endanger’d either their own safety, or the happiness of their people’. In 1741 William Hatchett published The Chinese Orphan, the first of other, more well-known adaptations of a Chinese tragedy translated into French by Joseph de Prémare (1666–1736) and incorporated into the Description of China by Father du Halde. Hatchett’s version, which in truth was never staged, would have enabled a contemporary audience to immediately associate Walpole with the villain of the piece, Siako (prime minister of Emperor Kio Hamti), and His Majesty’s Opposition (led by the prince of Wales, who was not on good terms with the king), with the worthy general Olopoen, cravenly assassinated but finally revenged by his descendent Camby, the Chinese orphan.8

7 

According to Fan Cunzhong (T. C. Fan), most of the Chinese extracts that appear in The Bee can be traced to a letter from Father Constancin published in the Jesuit Lettres édifiantes et curieuses, xix, ed. by J. B. du Halde (1729). 8  For more on these, and for several other examples, see Fan, ‘Chinese Fables and AntiWalpole Journalism’, and Fan, ‘Dr. Johnson and Chinese Culture’ (both articles are republished

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

53

Hatchett’s play was dedicated to the second Duke of Argyll (1678–1743), the commander of the British forces in the Jacobite rebellion of 1715, famous for having been stripped of his offices after a heated speech against the government in April 1740. Also significantly dedicated to the Duke was Gordon’s translation of Tacitus’s life of Agricola, published in 1731 (in the second volume of his Works of Tacitus). It is to Gordon, a steadfast admirer of Pierre Bayle and a staunch critic of Walpole’s alliance with the Anglican hierarchy, that we must attribute the effective neologism ‘Priestianity’.9 This derives from an evident lexical corruption of the word ‘Christianity’, and suggests the two terms are interchangeable. Gordon’s anticlerical polemic not only was directed at the clergy’s arrogance, ambition, and craving for power and money, but also sowed the doubt that it was neither possible nor necessary to arrive at a shared religious conviction. In his view, it is not uniformity or religious orthodoxy that makes human beings religious or which can save them, but the exercising of a social virtue, of moral conduct that actively promotes the common good, of ‘all men alike, without regard to their speculations, any more than to their clothes, or to the colour of their hair’.10 In a similar way, in the Voyages et aventures de Jacques Massé, the celebrated Spinozist initiation novel published anonymously in 1714 by the Huguenot dissident Simon Tyssot de Patot (found guilty of atheism and obscenity and banned from Deventer by the city council), an extraordinary Chinese character (a former Catholic educated by Jesuit missionaries) abjures all denominational creeds and labels himself as a ‘universaliste, or devotee of the religion des honnêtes gens’.11 In the following pages, I hope to show how ‘the argument from the Chinese’ was effectively added to Gordon’s ‘republican’ and anticlerical ammunition. 2. Between 1726 and 1729, during his exile in London, Voltaire had witnessed first hand the liveliness of the English debate on toleration. A powerful impetus to elaborate and affirm principles of toleration had been provided by the publication, in 1689, of Locke’s Epistola de tolerantia. For much of the eighteenth century, a wide variety of English advocates of toleration found their essential presuppositions in this text: the clear-cut separation of the political and religious in The Vision of China, ed. by Hsia, pp. 249–81). See also Leed, ‘Johnson, Du Halde, and the Life of Confucius’. 9  ‘Priestianity: Or, A View of the Disparity Between the Apostles and the Modern Inferior Clergy’ (1720), in Trenchard and Gordon, A Collection of Tracts, ii. 10  Trenchard and Gordon, The Independent Whig (1816), dedication ‘To the Lower House of Convocation’ (first published in 1722), p. xiii. 11  Israel, Enlightenment Contested, pp. 594–96. A copy of Tyssot’s novel was accessible to Gordon in the library of his friend and mentor Anthony Collins.

Chapter II

54

spheres, the possibility of coexistence between different confessions in the same political community, toleration as a distinctive sign of the true Christian Church, the ineffectiveness of coercion as a means of persuasion. However, with the development of the deistic movement, the most characteristic outcomes of eighteenth-century English reflection on toleration went well beyond Locke’s thinking. ‘The Christianity not Mysterious (1696) of Toland was not the “reasonable Christianity” of Locke: and thirty-five years later, in 1730, Tindal’s Christianity as Old as the Creation (essentially the uselessness of the Revelation) made the gulf even obviously wider’.12 Tindal explained, in what came to be known as ‘the Deists’ Bible’, that he was ‘so far from thinking the maxims of Confucius and Jesus Christ to differ that [he thought] the plain and simple maxims of the former will help to illustrate the more obscure ones of the latter, accommodated to the then way of speaking’.13 Locke’s horizon of toleration was Christian society, and toleration was essentially viewed as freedom of religion, attributing to individuals the right to pursue their own salvation by adhering to the religious confession by which they were best persuaded. In fact, Locke did not include atheists amongst those deemed worthy of toleration. The society imagined by Locke envisaged the peaceful coexistence of confessional blocks, of closed communities. Individuals could not withdraw from all religious communities without losing their civil and political rights. On the contrary, in deistic speculation, the idea of natural religion radicalized by the English fortunes of Spinoza’s and Bayle’s thinking upheld principles of a universal morality, ‘the primacy of which presupposed neither ecclesiastic institutions nor the relative orthodoxies’. All individuals should be free to publicly express their beliefs, while the formation of broad and influential ecclesiastical hierarchies was to be prevented or curtailed: in fact, the less individuals were tied to or influenced by the dictates of an organized church, the freer they were. This cultural upheaval was acknowledged in a very important article — Tolérance — written for the Encyclopédie by the Genevan pastor Romilly, in which he formulated the demand for ‘universal toleration’, and in the Éloge de Montesquieu, the preface to the fifth volume of the Encyclopédie, in which D’Alembert wrote admiringly about the author of the Lettres Persanes (who died in 1755).14 12 

Rotondò, ‘Tolleranza’, pp. 66–69. Tindall, Christianity as Old as the Creation, p. 342. 14  Rotondò, ‘Tolleranza’, p. 69. According to Collins, ‘as it is every man’s natural right and duty to think, and judge for himself in matters of opinion; so he should be allow’d freely to profess his opinions, and to endeavour, when he judges proper, to convince others also of their truth: provided those opinions do not tend to the disturbance of society’ (Collins, A Discourse 13 

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

55

Gordon, a friend and collaborator of some of the most influential deists of his age, did not hesitate, in one of his most successful texts, the Dialogue Between Monsieur Jurieu, and a Burgomaster of Rotterdam, to contend for ‘universal toleration of all opinions, true and false’. The burgomaster — clearly Gordon’s fictional alter ego — absolves Bayle and ridicules Jurieu. Above all, he concurs with Bayle’s thesis that a virtuous atheist is a better citizen than a devout fanatic who, in obedience to the precepts of a false religion, hounds his fellow-creatures.15 3. Mention has been made of the importance, in the eighteenth-century debate on toleration, of Montesquieu’s Lettres Persanes (1721). The recurring literary fiction of diaries and correspondence by Eastern travellers, who described the world from their own point of view, became a tried-and-tested expedient in eighteenth-century European literature to emphasize the relative nature of religious and civil systems intended to have an absolute grounding, and to combat the disdain for diversity. The most remote representation of alterity, even though it presupposed an imposing mass of documentation and presented detailed iconographic patterns, was generally functional to an entirely European cultural debate that could be traced back either to age-old interconfessional disputes or to the more aggressive anticlerical and antitheist offensive. One further, lesser-known expression of this literary genre is found in a short essay by Gordon significantly entitled ‘Mutual Bitterness and Persecution Amongst Christians, How Repugnant to the Gospel, and How Shocking to a Rational Pagan’. The essay, portraying a ‘sensible Chinese’ travelling through intolerant Christian countries, appeared for the first time under Gordon’s name in 1735 in the three-volume enlarged sixth edition of the Independent Whig (iii, no. 64). Gordon’s Chinese traveller’s bitter judgements on both Catholic and Protestant inconsistencies deserve to be quoted in full here: I have sometimes fancied to myself, what a sensible Chinese would think of the gospel upon reading it; in what manner he would conceive it must be preached, and what consequences he would expect from that preaching. ‘Here, he would say, is the most meek and benevolent system that ever appeared in the world; a system contrived to root out the roughness, malignity, and selfishness of human nature, of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion, p. vi). 15  A colonial edition of the Dialogue (Philadelphia, 1723) is known about from an advertisement in Rawle, Ways and Means for the Inhabitants of Delaware to Become Rich. Samuel Keimer, the eccentric printer, was the first employer of Benjamin Franklin, often described as ‘the first and foremost American Sinophile’.

56

Chapter II

to extinguish or restrain all its sour passions; to destroy for ever all the seeds of strife, anger, and war; and to make all men friends. Happy are they who receive this system! More happy they amongst whom it is continually preached and inculcated! Here is no pretence for divisions, at least for quarrelling about them. Here all the pomp and tyranny, affected by men over men, are expressly forbid, and love, even to our enemies, is strictly enjoined. This is admirable! Without doubt, it is from God. The Divine Being, in pity to the ill-natured, jarring, and tempestuous world, has here offered them a divine calm, and restored them to a state of perfection and innocence, by giving them these celestial rules for bearing and forbearing all manner of evils. Would I could be a witness of the happy state of Christendom!’ I have fancied this same Chinese in Christendom; and first in Rome, the centre of Christendom, the residence of his Holiness, and the seat of all abominations, poisonings, assassinations, unnatural lust, pride, ambition, divisions, tyranny, luxury, poverty, and oppression. There he sees an old friar, who calls himself the vicar of the meek Jesus, covered with all the ensigns of savage tyranny, supporting his monstrous and motley domination, with dark intrigues, and every pious and worldly fraud; holding his own subjects under severe fetters and famine, scattering, everywhere, firebrands and the spirit of slaughter and war amongst Christians; animating sovereigns against their people, the people against their sovereigns; and giving his apostolic benediction to human rage and malice. The Chinese asks if his Holiness be a Christian according to the gospel? Yes, he is answered; he is what he is from the gospel, and all that he does is from it. The Chinese blesses himself, and the more Christian spirit of good old Confucius. He is just ready to return to China again, to a happier people, and more virtuous paganism, but meets with a Protestant, who tells him, that all the wickedness which he finds at Rome, is the abuse of religion, and the natural effects of the Pope’s lying pretentions and usurpations; and begs him to visit Protestant countries, which abhor the Pope, and all his doings. The Chinese, ravished to hear that the Gospel does not fare everywhere alike, and in hopes of beholding societies of men, who are Christians according to the gospel, travels through part of the empire, where he finds Lutherans and Calvinists, headed by their guides, at mortal enmity. They both believe the gospel, but rail at one another out of it, hate one another for it, and are only restrained by their princes from contending, even to blood, about words which are not in it. In Denmark and Sweden he finds the Lutherans still fiercer, and suffering no sort nor name of Christianity among them but their own, and treating all others with the highest pitch of fury and ignorance. The Chinese, who thinks the Lutheran Popes as little justifiable as the Romish Popes, since they alike set up for spiritual dominion, which the gospel gives to no man upon earth, does once more praise old Confucius; and, resolved to find, if he can, the spirit of Christianity in some Christian country, sails away for Great Britain, and lands in Scotland. There he beholds a rigid gravity in the countenance of the Kirk; she affects great sanctity, has an eminent conceit of her own righteousness, but finds righteousness nowhere else; she has a very strong stomach for dominion,

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

57

but sweetens it with a soft name, and calls it discipline, which she exercises with little tenderness upon such as offend her, or gainsay her; and towards all other churches and opinions, her looks are sour and unforgiving. She talks much of the Lord, and contends that nothing is to be done by any man without God’s grace moving in him, and assisting him, which is in no man’s power. But, for all that, if you want that grace, of which she is judge, or if you do not learn it from her, and submit implicitly to her, though she be not the giver of grace, you will find that she asserts a claim, as well as his holiness, to chastise wrong faith and obstinacy. For though the Pope, being the man of sin, has no such right, yet she, who is the daughter of Zion, is entitled to it. The Chinese cries, that here is much loud and warm zeal, very long prayers, a world of bitterness, but no charity. In England, says he, there is more knowledge and freedom: I will try England. In it he finds great and free liberty of conscience, and rejoices in it; but sees those who should be most for it, most implacable against it. He sees churchmen nobly provided for, but many of them not satisfied; on the contrary, claiming ten times more, and wildly supporting those claims by the gospel, and by the example of cheating and usurping popish monks; sees them railing at private conscience, damning all that have it, and calling for the temporal sword to destroy them. He sees great part of the dissenters, who, after much suffering, enjoy this precious liberty, not contented with it, nor mended by their sufferings, but setting up this same anti-christian spiritual domination, and taking, as far as they can, the blessing and protection of the merciful law from one another. The Chinese applauds the wisdom, gentleness, and Christian spirit of the legislature, and finds the chief human security for the gospel in an act of Parliament, by which every man has the natural and Christian privilege to read, understand, and apply it in his own way. ‘This, says he, is Christianity according to the gospel, which, by observation, can only subsist where all sorts of consciences, the wise and the weak, are entirely unmolested, where no sort of power is exercised over the soul, and where every man understands and interprets with security the words of Christ and of Paul, as he judges Christ and Paul meant them. No two things, not heaven and hell, or good and evil, are more opposite than force and faith. The one is only from the good God; the other only from the worst passions of the worst men’.16

16 

Trenchard and Gordon, The Independent Whig (1816), iii, no.  64, pp. 38–39. The ‘perplexed thoughts of a sensible Chinese’ were first published in the British Journal (no. 74, 1724) under the pseudonym Criton. Paul Bunyan Anderson (Anderson, ‘Cato’s Obscure Counterpart’, at p. 416) mistook Criton for Bernard Mandeville (see McMahon, The Radical Whigs, p. 97). According to Anderson, the suggestion for this text came from Bayle, Commentaire philosophique sur ces paroles de Jésus-Christ, ‘Contrains-les d’entrer’, Engl. trans. 1708, i, 27–28; 84–87. Cf. the fictitious apologue about Chinese travelers in Europe bewildered by the Catholic cult of images, related by a group of Jesuits in opposition to the anti-accommodative stances of the Vicar Apostolic of Fujian Charles Maigrot. See Ginzburg, ‘Ancora sui riti cinesi’.

Chapter II

58

4. Looking through the catalogue of one of the richest private libraries of the early eighteenth century, that of the English freethinker Anthony Collins, who was assiduously frequented both by Locke and by the most representative exponents of the secular anticlericalism of those years, including Gordon, it can be noted that many of the titles reveal the extraordinary interest of the time in the Far East, from China to Japan, from Persia to Siam.17 However, the motives, and the result, of the many attempts at cross-cultural evaluation made by early modern European missionaries, travellers, and scholars, were largely self-oriented. Emblematic of this was the production, in 1741, following the promptings of the Catholic Journal de Trévoux, of the Paris edition18 of the Cérémonies et coutumes religieuses de tous les peuples du monde, the celebrated, highly expensive comparative work edited by Jean Frédéric Bernard and illustrated by Bernard Picart, which had been published in Amsterdam in seven volumes between 1723 and 1737 (with four supplementary volumes being published between 1733 and 1743). The Dutch edition — of which there was an incomplete copy in Collins’s library — had stressed that the history of religions systematically offered examples of cross-cultural contamination, of reciprocal influences and adaptations, from which Christianity itself was not exempt. The variety in forms of worship was to be put down to a progressive moving away from a true understanding of God. The original and pure notion of divinity had been corrupted and had degenerated into extravagant forms of superstition and idolatry, above all as a result of the intervention of arbitrary intermediaries, whether these were Buddhist bonzes or Catholic priests.19 The ascertained universality of religious sentiment and its necessary expression in forms of rituality suggested that a scenario of compatibility and of universal toleration was possible. 17 

See Manuel, The Eighteenth Century Confronts the Gods; Pailin, Attitudes to Other Religions; and Tarantino, ‘The Books and Times of Anthony Collins’. It is worth mentioning that, when Locke died, he bequested to Collins the exceptionally detailed map of Tartary by Nicholas Witsen that had been hanging in his study. See Locke, The Correspondence, ed. by De Beer, viii (1989), 420. 18  Histoire générale des cérémonies, mœurs et coutumes religieuses, ed. by Banier and Le Mascrier. 19  The same ironic and detached gaze cast, in the Dutch edition, on representations of divinities in China was directed towards forms of saint worship in the Christian West. The comparison between Buddhist monks and Catholic priests revealed a common, declining parable of religious sentiment: here religion is compared to the ‘vieux vaisseau des Argonautes’, which the Greeks had mended and adapted to such a degree, in order to conserve it for posterity, that in the end little remained of the original ship. See Minuti, ‘Comparatismo e idolatrie orientali’ (p. 1052); Jacob, ‘The Nature of Early Eighteenth-Century Religious Radicalism’, pp. 7–9; von Wyss-Giacosa, Religionsbilder der frühen Aufklärung. See also Ginzburg, ‘Provincializing the World’, pp. 144–46.

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

59

The Paris edition, in turn, set out first of all to remedy the discernably antiCatholic tone of Bernard’s work, starting immediately with the illustration of the new frontispiece: the Catholic Church, in the French edition, is in the centre and shines with light. Next to it is a large open book bearing the inscription ‘Biblia sacra’ on one page and ‘Concilia et traditiones’ on the other. In Picart’s frontispiece, on the other hand, the Bible was on the side of the Reformed Church and ‘Concilia et traditiones’ were placed, separately, on the side of Catholicism. Above all, the Catholic revisers were driven by the need to affirm that a reasonable curiosity about the diversity of habits and customs amongst the different peoples of the Earth should not serve to promote a toleration that excuses everything and reconciles mutually incompatible practices and beliefs, but to arrive at a more solid and conscious affirmation of the Christian truth, which could derive new and important grounds for comfort from the comparison. The Dutch and French editions of the Cérémonies did converge on one point, albeit with different shades of meaning: both excluded the argument that China was a society of atheists and that Confucian doctrine was nothing other than a reasonable practical philosophy devoid of any metaphysical implications,20 as 20 

It is interesting to note that Chinese roadside mendicants appear in both frontispieces. Selective Dutch, English, and German translations soon appeared. The English translation (1733–39) printed for Claude Du Bosc (one of the first wave of skilled French engravers to arrive in London in the early years of the eighteenth century) dropped the whole of Bernard’s opening preface (where the superfluity of priestly hierarchies and ‘unnecessary trappings of worship’ was suggested), his account of Toland’s views, the protracted notes on the French Convulsionaries, the ‘modern Mysticks’, the Free-Masons and the Socinians, the lengthy description of Spinoza’s life, and the definition of God found in Spinoza’s Ethics. See Hunt, Jacob, and Mijnhardt, The Book that Changed Europe, pp. 18–19, 284–95. Vols i and iv are dated 1733; vols ii and iii are dated 1734; vols v–vii are dated respectively 1736, 1737, and 1739, with the final, substantially pruned volume on ‘Mahometism’ being conceived as the second part of the sixth volume. Copies of the original plates were engraved by Du Bosc, Charles Grignion, and Gérard II Scotin, often in reverse. Hubert-François Gravelot, a prominent book illustrator in France, was also involved.   It is worth mentioning that the Du Bosc edition (published in weekly shilling numbers from March 1733) selectively reproduced the first incomplete translation by Hogarth’s friend John Lockman (1698–1771) printed for Nicolas Prévost in 1731 in three whole volumes (with a fourth being announced in the Gentleman’s Magazine two years later). Moreover, it transposed before the fourth volume the enlightened letter to the reader by that accomplished translator (and versatile author as well) originally intended as a telling introduction to the whole work. Translations from the French ascribed to Lockman include a selection of the Jesuit Lettres édifiantes et curieuses, Bayle’s General Dictionary, Desfontaines’s French ‘sequel’ to Gulliver’s Travels, and works by Montesquieu and Voltaire. Along with his friend the Revd Thomas Birch, he was also an author of the Gentleman’s Magazine. Significantly, in one of the supplementary footnotes to his translation of the Cérémonies (vol. iii, ‘A Dissertation on the Americans’,

60

Chapter II

had been sustained by Bayle, Collins, and Nicolas Fréret, and in which Gordon had also demonstrated his belief, when he commented that ‘in China, all men of consideration, all of any eminence for learning or dignity, are Deists’. I wish that in Spain and Italy, and in many other countries called Christian, as much civil felicity, and as many marks of prosperity were found, as in China: It were indeed better for mankind, that all fiery Catholicks and bigots every where, were converted into rational and sober Chinese.21 chap. 7), Lockman commented: ‘How unhappy is the man whose felicity depends upon the caprices of others! The wise man, on the contrary, makes it his continual study to think and act conformable to the dictates of reason’. In the preface to his History of the Cruel Sufferings of the Protestants, and Others, by Popish Persecutions, in Various Countries (compiled at the time of the last Jacobite uprising but published only in 1760 in the aftermath of the English conquest of Quebec), he maintained that ‘it would be highly irrational, and inconsistent with the precepts of the gospel, to hate any man, merely on account of his religion’.   Prévost, a well-established Huguenot bookseller on the Strand, had also been connected with Voltaire over the publication of the Essays and the Henriade. See Bower, Historia litteraria, ii (1731), art. 41; The Monthly Catalogue for May 1729; the Gentleman’s Magazine for April 1731, March and July 1733; The Grub Street Journal, 1 March 1733; Wiles, Serial Publication in England, pp. 126, 197–98; Lee, ‘The Unexamined Premise’; Simon, Hogarth, France and British Art, esp. chaps 7, 10, and 14. The translator for the Du Bosc edition, referred to on the title page of volumes i and iv as ‘a Gentleman, some time since of S. John’s College in Oxford’, seems to have been Daniel Bellamy the elder (b. 1687), a multifaceted writer with a strong religious presence, who (in 1739?) also proposed publishing by subscription an abridged version of the Ceremonies in seven ‘pocket volumes in twelves’ to be sold to subscribers at the moderate price the of one guinea for the whole, ‘neatly bound in calf ’ (the folio editions were sold at that time for no less than twelve guineas). See the anonymous DNB entry ‘Daniel Bellamy’ and Oxford, Bodl. Libr., MS Rawlinson J., fol. 2, fols 174r, 175r–v. 21  Gordon, An Examination of the Facts and Reasonings in the Lord Bishop of Chichester’s Sermon, p. 61. In one of his Cato’s Letters, the collection of libertarian essays co-authored with Trenchard (Trenchard and Gordon, Cato’s Letters, ed. by Hamowy, no. 44, ‘Men not ruled by Principle, but by Passion’), Gordon reproduces the Baylian apologue which describes a Jesuit trying in vain to convince a Chinese Mandarin that Christian subjects are more loyal towards the Emperor of China than literati, that is, atheist subjects (see Réponse aux questions d’un provincial, pt iii, chap. 21, in Bayle, Oeuvres diverses de Mr Pierre Bayle, iii, 958). Bayle’s position, which is explicitly echoed in the works of Collins and Gordon, overturns the Jesuits’ representation of ancient Chinese thought. Louis Le Comte, Philippe Couplet, and Charles Le Gobien, to mention just some of the most illustrious and widely cited Jesuit Orientalists, had represented Confucius as a Christian saint, the interpreter of an ancient seed of religious truth buried in China by centuries of idolatry [with the ‘Figurists’ even arguing that Chinese classics contained, in symbolical form, anticipations of New Testament teachings]. According to Confucius Sinarum Philosophus, a collection, in Latin, of classic Confucian texts edited by Couplet (1687), Confucius always upheld the notion of a providential God, and the terms T’ien and Xam-ti (or

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

61

5. Before saying more about Gordon’s Sinophilia, I would like to briefly mention another significant, and perhaps more confused, representation of the ‘religious Other’ that crops up repeatedly in Gordon’s writings, as it does in the wider eighteenth-century debate on toleration: the representation of Islam. At the end of the eighteenth century, Father Nicolas-Silvestre Bergier, in the three-volume Dictionnaire de Theologie (1788–90) prepared as part of the massive project of the Encyclopédie Méthodique, included a long entry on Mahométisme. In it he set out to confute the appealing representation of Islam expressed by eighteenth-century rationalist and philosophique culture and to portray it instead as a religion characterized by the debasement and subjection of women, by ignorance, by violence, and by the despotism of rulers. One cannot help wondering how a different image of Islam had managed to spread so very Shang-ti) in classical Confucianism expressed not the universe, as the opponents of the Jesuits maintained, but the Divinity (Heaven and the Lord Above, respectively). This famous collection, which introduced the name Confucius, latinized from the Chinese title Kong Fuzi, to the Western world, contained Prospero Intorcetta’s translations of Ta Hsüeh (The Great Learning), Chung-yung (The Mean), and Lun-yü (The Analects), and Couplet’s genealogical tables. Many Englishmen learned of Confucian morality through the 1691 English translation of Confucius, La Morale, an anoymous panegyric of Confucius based upon the Jesuits’ Confucius Sinarum Philosophus. As is known, the Jesuits’ theses were opposed not only by philosophers, but also by the Jansenist Antoine Arnauld and the Oratorian Malebranche. From their reading of the Latin translations of the Confucian texts, both agreed with Bayle, though from a different perspective, that the ancient Confucians had never known any spiritual substance separate from matter. See Lundbaek, ‘The Image of Neo-Confucianism’; Mungello, ‘European Philosophical Responses’; Israel, ‘Admiration of China and Classical Thought’, pp. 11–15. Significantly, in Boyer d’Argens, Lettres chinoises, a fictitious Chinese visitor to Paris would report to his correspondents in China that in Paris and elsewhere in Europe innumerable men now followed a philosophy closely resembling that of the Chinese ‘literati’ and that its European originator was a Dutch thinker called ‘Spinoza’. See also Cérémonies et coutumes religieuses de tous les peuples du monde, ii (1728), 193, 205. On Collins’s perception of a resemblance between Confucianism and Spinozism, see Israel, Enlightenment Contested, p. 454.   It is finally worth recalling that Gordon returns to the topic of the priests’ loyalty to the secular governors in Gordon, ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’, again with a comparative approach: ‘The Talapois, in the Kingdom of Lao, or Langia, in the East, are so formidable, even to the King, that when they commit the most outrageous crimes, robbery, treason, rapes, and murder, he dare not punish them, nor suffer them to be punished. […] Thus that King reigns with their leave, and they tyrannize without his. This is, indeed, a very surprising account; but is still more surprising, that it comes from European missionaries, though it be probably very true. Have not European, Catholic Talapois opposed princes, their natural princes, rebelled against princes, cursed their princes, deposed their princes, poisoned and stabbed their princes? And do they not still claim to be independent of their natural sovereign every-where, and subject only to their own jurisdiction, and to the sovereignty of the Pope?’ (pp. 179–80).

Chapter II

62

‘dangerously’. In the first place, a contribution had been made by travel literature. Between the second half of the seventeenth century and the first few decades of the eighteenth century, an increasingly dense network of contacts was built up by travellers, missionaries, and diplomats with a broad range of Islamic countries — from the Middle East to Moghul India — and their accounts contain descriptions and judgements that often stress the tolerant nature of the communities they visited and the political regimes governing them. These materials were combined with the results of the considerable progress in philological and erudite research, which, ‘while not abandoning the inherent anti-Islamic premises rooted in Christian culture’, had produced some objective elements of knowledge, founded above all on a direct relationship with documentary sources, which contributed significantly to ‘overcoming the threshold of prejudice and the uncritical rejection of any engagement with Islamic alterity’.22 The importance of the work of the Dutch Orientalist Adriaan Reeland is worth recalling in this context. In De religione Mohammedica (1705), he proposed to put straight philologically all the untruths, misunderstandings, and errors that had accrued around Islam in the course of a long apologetic tradition. For Reeland this did not mean taking a sympathetic approach to Islam, but on the contrary, involved the opening up of new prospects for ‘Protestant proselytism’, no longer by amplifying the reasons of contrast but by identifying elements of affinity and the conditions for dialogue, as emerged clearly from an unprejudiced reading. It is significant that the anonymous English translation of Reeland’s text, included in a tendentially philo-Islamic collection of works (Four Treatises Concerning the Doctrines, Discipline and Worship of the Mahometans, 1712), was attributed in Collins’s library catalogue to William Morehead, believed to have been the author, at the request of Collins himself, of an English version of Giordano Bruno’s Spaccio della Bestia Trionfante, a work that advocated, amongst various heresies, metempsychosis. As Lynn Hunt, Margaret C. Jacob, and Wijnand Mijnhardt recall, in their recent analysis of Bernard and Picart’s Cérémonies, the belief in the transmigration of souls (‘to be found everywhere’, in Bernard’s account, ‘among the religious beliefs of the East’) appealed to early modern freethinkers in that it ‘usually went hand in hand with a metaphysics that reduced nature to matter in motion and allowed nature to be coterminous with God’.23 22 

Minuti, Orientalismo e idee di tolleranza, Chapter 2, pp. 117-256. Hunt, Jacob, and Mijnhardt, The Book that Changed Europe, pp.  232–33. See also Bernard Picart, ed. by Hunt, Jacob, and Mijnhardt. Perhaps the same obscure Morehead should be credited with another philo-Islamic text, A Letter from an Arabian Physician to a famous Professor in the University of Hall in Saxony, concerning Mahomet’s taking up Arms, his marrying 23 

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

63

These circumstances all come together to document the interest in Islamic culture and religion expressed by deistic, Socinian, and anticlerical coteries in eighteenth-century England.24 Indeed, it is significant that one of the most virulent late seventeenth-century attacks on Islamic imposture, The True Nature of imposture fully displayed in the life of Mahomet (1697) by Humphrey Prideaux, also included a ‘Letter to the Deists’, and that this appeared mainly to be a polemical treatise against deists and Unitarians. According to Prideaux, ‘the Socinians say just the same, and no more of Jesus Christ than Mahomet did before them, excepting only that he makes himself the greater of the two’. A noteworthy influence on the eighteenth-century representation of a tolerant Islam was provided by Pierre Bayle, who pointed out on various occasions that despite the effective existence of a Koranic justification for the use of force in order to spread Islam, the Muslims generally showed themselves to be tolerant towards other religions, while on the other hand the Christians, although they had received no instruction other than to preach and to teach (‘de prêcher et d’instruire’), had, since time immemorial, exterminated with fire and sword (‘par le fer et par le feu’) those who were not of their own religion. From this Bayle drew the conclusion, as a constant, unvarying characteristic of all religions and as a uniform anthropological connotation, that men conduct themselves very little according to their principles (‘les hommes se conduisent peu selon leur principes’).25 In a similar way, in Gordon there recurs both a representation of Eastern monarchies (especially Turkey and Persia) as the epitome of reactionary of many Wives, his keeping of Concubines, and his Paradise (dated Paris, 14 June 1706), which circulated in the English version as an appendix to Bruno’s Spaccio and in the French version as an appendix to Collins, A Discourse of Free-Thinking. 24  It was above all the antitrinitarians (from Henry Stubbe to Stephen Nye, Arthur Bury to William Freke) who formulated the argument that Islam should be viewed as the restoration of those monotheistic principles most directly linked to natural religion that Christianity had progressively altered, in particular by introducing the notion of the Trinity. Above all, since 1652 there had been an available English translation of the Racovian Catechism (1601), the antitrinitarian statement of faith of the Polish Socinians, where the Koran is repeatedly cited against the Trinity. And it is known that the Nazarenus by the deist John Toland was translated into French with the title of Christianisme Judaïque et Mahometan. In this text Toland drew on the Gospel of Barnabas, a presumed apocryphal text rejected by the Fathers of the Church, to present the Muslims as a Christian sect that harked back to the original sources of apostolic teaching. It therefore became commonplace to dub as ‘Mohammedan’ any author suspected of Unitarian or Socinian sympathies. See Champion, ‘“I remember a Mahometan Story”’. 25  Bayle, ‘Mahomet’, p. 265, note AA. See Minuti, ‘L’immagine dell’Islam nel Settecento’; Minuti, Orientalismo e idee di tolleranza, pp. 192–205.

Chapter II

64

despotism26 and recognition of the greater toleration exercised by the ‘Church of Mohammed’ with respect to the Christian Churches. 27 Above all, in his exhilarating parody of the trial of William Whiston on charges of Arianism, he introduces as a witness in favour of the defendant, together with the apostles Peter and Paul, and the evangelists, a Turk named Mustapha Ben Hamet, in order to emphasize the rationality and the conformity to apostolic Christianity of monotheistic Islam. Mustapha testifies that some Christian missionaries now occupied in Pequin in China had been unable to convert him precisely because of the Trinitarian thesis, ‘which is nonsensical, blasphemous, and absurd’.28 In 1692, William Popple, Locke’s Unitarian friend and the English translator of his Epistola de tolerantia, who repeatedly invoked an ‘absolute, universal, equal and inviolable liberty of conscience’,29 finished a tragedy called Tamerlane the 26  See Curtis, Orientalism and Islam, pp. 60–61, 80; Gordon, ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’, pp. 20, 25, 30, 118, and Gordon, ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’, pp. 40 (where the Chinese Emperor Taizong and a Turkish Emperor are juxtaposed), 169, 172–74 (on the enduring power of governments founded on religious imposture). 27  See for example Gordon, A Letter of Consolation and Counsel, at p. 19, and his ‘Dialogue between a noble Convert and his late Confessor’. 28  Gordon, ‘The Tryal of William Whiston’. Mustapha’s character appears only in the 1740 third edition of the Tryal, pp. *19–*25. On the enduring conflation of Muslims with ‘Turks’ in the early modern English imagination see MacLean and Matar, Britain and the Islamic World, Chapter 1, pp. 12–41. 29 

Popple had direct experience (necessarily concealed) of what it was like to be a member of a minority both in post-Revocation France — he was a Protestant exile there — and in England, as a Unitarian rationalist excluded from the benefits of the Toleration Act. With regard to this, it is worth recalling that the ill-fated Declaration of Indulgence, issued a few years earlier in 1687 by King James II on the basis of his royal prerogative alone, envisaged a much broader formal emancipation of all the Christian minorities from a condition of marginalization and clandestinity. That same year also saw the visit to England of Michael Alphonsus Shen Fuzong (d. 1691), a Chinese traveller versed in Latin letters, who had converted to Catholicism and was about to be ordained as a priest. After almost a year in Paris cataloguing Chinese books in the royal library of King Louis XIV, and helping French scholars with the final proof-reading of the first Latin translation of Confucius’s sayings, Shen had come to England in the spring of 1687. Here he was introduced to Robert Boyle, one of England’s leading scientists, who was generally averse to receiving guests but agreed to meet Shen Fuzong when he learned that he was ‘extremely well versed in his own language’, was well informed about the climate of China, and, above all, had a thorough knowledge of Confucius’s philosophy, without, however, being ‘captivated’ by it. Even more significantly, King James II apparently commissioned Godfrey Kneller, the celebrated painter both of the English royal family and of many leading aristocrats of the day, to do a portrait of Shen Fuzong (‘the first detailed portrayal ever made of a Chinese

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

65

Beneficent (left unpublished); in it there is a dialogue between the conqueror Tamerlane, an infidel yet sensitive to the Christian message of love and compassion, and the Patriarch of Constantinople, who, contradicting the dictates of his faith, persistently presses for repressive measures against those Christians who refuse to recognize his authority.30 Two years earlier, Popple had anonymously published A Discourse of Humane Reason: With Relation to Matters of Religion (a translation, ‘mais augmentee & mise en meilleur ordre’, of his introduction to Martin Clifford’s Traité de la raison humaine traduit de l’Anglois, which had appeared in Amsterdam eight years earlier). In this booklet Popple quoted extensively from Jean Le Clerc’s sixty-eight-page review of the Confucius Sinarum Philosophus in his Bibliothèque universelle et historique (which, significantly, contained just six lines about contemporary Confucianism, the result, according to the Jesuit authors, of distortions of the ancient texts by ‘the Neoterics’31), and concluded: The rule of reason, says he [Confucius], which comprehends the reciprocal duties of king and subjects, of parents and children, of husband and wife, of young and old, of friends, and of all people that have any manner of converse and dealing with one another, is not above the capacity of any one. But the maxims which some people have invented, and which they term sublime, and above the ordinary reach; certain strange and abstruse principles, that have no affinity with any of the abovementioned relations in which men stand towards one another; such doctrines as these (says he) cannot be accounted amongst the rules of Reason. One would think he were prophetically censuring some of our curious systematical Creed-makers.32

person in England’). In this particular religious and political context — in which the English Catholic minority felt close to being readmitted to public positions — Shen’s portrait, hanging in King James’ apartments next to his bed chamber, can be seen as ‘the symbol of a new dawn for the Catholic faith, of which the mission to China was a manifestation’ (Spence, ‘When Minds Met: China and the West’). 30  BL, MS Addit. 8888, fols 50–51. 31  ‘The conceptual framework for distinguishing Sung and Ming Confucianism from earlier Confucianism by the use of the category “Neo-Confucianism” was established by the Jesuits in the seventeenth century. […] Detailed presentations [of Neo-Confucian cosmology and metaphysics] also were available in the anti-accommodative works of the China Jesuit Nichola Longobardi and the Franciscan Antonio Caballero […] on the grounds that it was philosophically materialistic and atheistic’ (Mungello, ‘Confucianism in the Enlightenment’, at p. 115). On how the Chinese Rites Controversy assumed the tone of ‘a linguistic strife’, see Hsia, ‘Language Acquisition’. 32  Popple, A Discourse of Humane Reason, p. 34. On Popple, see Robbins, ‘Absolute Liberty’; Simonutti, ‘Un acteur et témoin du débat sur la tolérance’; Yeo, ‘John Locke on Conversation’; Tarantino, ‘Martin Clifford and “A Treatise of Humane Reason”’.

Chapter II

66

6. In 1748 Gordon published a collection of his writings, which for the most part had already appeared separately at the time of the last Jacobite uprising (the last attempt to restore the Stuarts to the throne of Great Britain) in 1745. The tone of the pieces is therefore prevalently anti-Catholic. In the introduction he says: Every man’s way of worship is best in his own opinion; and all are, or seem, in some sort defensible. Let every man enjoy his own. […] How can the Heart of Man consent to what the Mind of Man cannot conceive? Lay aside your Reason, and be convinced by our Authority, is a precept truly Popish: That is, put out your Eyes, and we will shew you rare Sights. Yet this is the spirit and strain of Popery, and of such as embrace its Principles, without adopting or owning its Name. Widely opposite is the Principle of genuine Protestants: ‘Nothing to be admitted without Evidence; no Evidence inconsistent with Reason’ (pp. ix, xv–xvi).

Gordon’s words, though betraying relief about the averted Jacobite threat, nevertheless place the persuasion of individual reason before any confessional flag. It is impossible to miss the likeness between these proud affirmations and what he wrote about ‘reasonable Chineses’ in the same years: ‘Can any sensible Chinese, without resentment and scorn, hear himself persuaded to renounce his Reason, as the first step to Happiness?’33 Significantly, the 1748 collection also includes a text emblematic of the eighteenth-century representation of China. First published in 1747,34 it is entitled ‘The intimate resemblance between the Popish Clergy, and those of modern Paganism in the East’. The author’s intent is again to bring out the analogy between the fraudulent behaviour and avidity of the Catholic clergy and that of Buddhist priests, be they the bonzes of China and Japan, the lamas of Tartary (Tibet), or the talapoins of Siam. Right at the beginning, Gordon’s brief pamphlet cites, in terms of praise, The Letter from Rome written in 1729 by Conyers Middleton (1683–1750), an Anglican divine who leant increasingly towards a sort of theistic rationalism.35 In his Letter, Middleton had stressed 33 

Gordon, ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’, p. 181. See Trenchard and Gordon, The Independent Whig (7th edn), iv (1747). 35  An Anglican geologist and the author of a popular three-volume Life of Cicero (1741), Middleton attracted the hostility of the Church of England for having argued, in dispute with the deistic thesis of the sufficiency of reason (as well as with Daniel Waterland’s attempt to defend, in his reply to Tindall, Christianity as Old as the Creation, the historical accuracy of the Bible), that since right reason was never found to be a sufficient guide, many heathens regarded this inadequacy as ‘the very cause of the invention and establishment of Religion’ (Middleton, The Miscellaneous Works, ii, 166, emphasis added). In 1749, in A Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers. In the spirit of John Locke (whose Third Letter on Toleration is evoked in 34 

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

67

the ‘exact conformity’ between the Church of Rome and ancient paganism. He argued that pagan rituals such as the use of holy water, incense, and wax candles were incorporated into the early Christian Church:36 by ‘substituting their Saints in the place of the old Demigods’ the Catholics ‘have but set up Idols of their own instead of those of their Forefathers’. Middleton found especially revolting the ascetic practices of the Catholic penitents and self-whippers.37 In turn, Gordon the preface), Middleton argued against the testimonies of miracles given by patristic authorities and later writers. Middleton’s last published work was a dissection of Bishop Sherlock’s answer to deistic Collins, A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion. Gordon’s 1743 dedication to George Bubb Dodington of his English translation of Cicero’s Orations against Catiline reveals that he was on personal good terms with Middleton: ‘I once intended to have considered Cicero at large, in three lights; as a statesman, an orator, and a writer. But the Doctor [Middleton] has prevented me; perhaps happily for me. Do you find yourself inclined to thank him upon a double account? I do, very heartily, for the justice, which he has done to the character to that divine Roman, as well as to his own. He hath, in this, as in other performances, shewn himself an able, an honest, and a well-bred man: A character particularly proper for controversy and criticism’ (Gordon, ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’, p. 74). See also Gordon, A Letter of Consolation and Counsel, p. 17. Hearing of Middleton’s death at the same time as Gordon’s, Bolingbroke observed: ‘Then there is the best writer in England gone and the worst’ (Nichols, Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, v, 419). On Middleton’s ‘awkward relationship with his faith’, see Young, ‘“Scepticism in Excess”’ (pp. 182–85). See also Pocock, Barbarism and Religion, v: Religion: The First Triumph (2010), Chapter 7, pp. 219-30. According to Pocock, Middleton’s criticism was ‘consistent with Protestant Christianity’ and initially Leclercian: ‘his discrediting of the Fathers is not retroactive’ (pp. 222, 225). 36  Admittedly this is not an original view. John Trenchard had used similar arguments in 1720 in his article ‘An Analogy Between Ancient Heathenism and Modern Priestcraft’ (first published on 28 December 1720): ‘I confess I am not wise enough to find out any essential difference between the present and the old Roman worship; they both dedicate their temples to dead men and women, whom the papists call saints, and the pagans called demi-gods and goddesses. […] They have also imitated the Heathens in making every human foible and imbecility, as well as every common and uncommon appearance in nature, contribute to their interests’. See Trenchard and Gordon, The Independent Whig (1816), no. 52. In James Dupré’s 1732 preface to the first English translation of Mussard, Conformité des cérémonies modernes avec les anciennes (originally printed in Leyden in 1667), Middleton, Collins, The Independent Whig, and Montesquieu’s Lettres Persanes were all sympathetically recalled. Mussard’s Conformité also opened the last supplementary volume (1743) to Bernard’s Cérémonies. In 1745 an anonymous English translator of Mussard allusively noted ‘the remarkable conformity’ between Middleton, A Letter from Rome and Mussard’s pamphlet (‘The Translator’s Preface’, pp. iii–vi). Both texts had appeared in a joint French edition printed in Amsterdam a year earlier. On the Protestant apologetics against ‘Pagano-papism’, see Smith, Drudgery Divine, esp. Chapter 1, pp. 1-35. See also Hodgen, Early Anthropology, esp. Chapter 8, pp. 295-349; and Elukin, ‘Jacques Basnage and the History of the Jews’ (pp. 616–19). 37 

‘In one of these processions made lately to St. Peter’s in the time of Lent, I saw that

68

Chapter II

recalled — drawing on authoritative Jesuit sources (mainly Louis Le Comte and Jean-Baptiste du Halde) — the widespread practice amongst Eastern bonzes of ‘scourging themselves with rods, flashing themselves with knives in the streets; dragging heavy iron chains; battering their naked bodies with rough stones, stopping at every door, and canting: All this we suffer for the expiation of your sins! Can you refuse us moderate alms?’38 The negative representation of Eastern religions does not contradict the Sinophile attitude expressed elsewhere by Gordon, because here reference is not made to Confucian philosophy but to Buddhism, believed, as also emerges in Bernard’s Cérémonies, to bear the chief responsibility for the spread of idolatry in China. Unlike Bernard, though, Gordon likens the doctrine of metempsychosis to the Catholic ones of Purgatory, absolution, and transubstantiation, making fun of them for their absurdity and lucrative ends: The Bonzes, Lamas, Talapois, are much the same sort of priests with different names in different countries in the East: Bonzes in Japan and China, Lamas in Tartary, Talapois in Siam. They profess to adore two divinities, Fo and Omito, father and son, and hold, that the invocation of these two is sufficient to expiate all crimes the most enormous, and to procure their votaries a happy Regeneration, ridiculous penance of the flagellants or self-whippers, who march with whips in their hands, and every now and then lash themselves on the bare back, till ’tis covered with blood; just in the same manner as the fanatical priests of Bellona or the Syrian Goddess, as well as the Votaries of Isis used to flash and cut themselves of old in order to please the Goddess by the sacrifice of their own blood: which mad piece of discipline we find frequently mentioned and as oft ridiculed by the antient Writers’. See Middleton, A Letter from Rome, pp. 15, 18, 31, 51. 38  Thomas Gordon, ‘The Intimate Resemblance Between the Popish Clergy, and Those of Modern Paganism in the East’, in Gordon, A Collection of Papers, no. 23, pp. 135–42, at p. 138. Although a first English translation of Le Comte’s Nouveaux Mémoires sur l’état present de la Chine (Paris: Anisson, 1696) had appeared in London in 1697, as Le Comte, Memoirs and Observations, Gordon does not hesitate here to offer his own translations. As for Jean-Baptiste du Halde’s Description de la Chine, one of the major works of information on China in the eighteenth century, it was available in at least three editions: the French edition in four volumes folio (1735); the first English translation, entitled The General History of China, by Richard Brookes, which was ‘injudiciously condensed from the original’ and published by John Watts in four volumes octavo (1736); and the second English translation, entitled A Description of the Empire of China, by John Green (born Bradock Mead) and (William) Guthrie (an Irishman and a Scotsman, both of them needy Grub Street scholars), published by Edward Cave (the proprietor of the Gentleman’s Magazine) in two volumes folio (1738–41). See Fan, ‘Dr. Johnson and Chinese Culture’. Much of the material in the Description had already been published in Latin for a learned audience. Du Halde helped to disseminate the existing translations of the Confucian classics, including the lesser-known ones published in Prague by François Noël in 1711 (Sinensis imperii libri classici sex).

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

69

or Renascence, according to their notions of Transmigration. […] Above all, they recommend alms-deeds, especially to themselves. […] The soul of a man, they hold, goes, when he dies, into some other creature, a better or a worse, according to his merits or defaults; and this character of him depends upon the word and pleasure of the priests.39

Gordon then, once again undertaking to popularize texts and controversies otherwise accessible only to an erudite and wealthy public, reports an emblematic episode recounted by Le Comte and later by du Halde (neither of whom, however, Gordon observes, saw ‘the obvious analogy between the Bonzes of China and the Bonzes of Rome’): a pagan, believing he was close to death, summoned and implored a Catholic missionary to convert him to his religion (by which, ‘men in this world continue men in t’other; and I would rather be a Christian than a beast’). This, he explained, was because the bonzes had predicted that upon his death he would be transformed into a post horse burdened by heavy tasks, as he had to expiate a comfortable life made possible by a generous imperial allowance. The bonzes demanded obedience, submission, and liberality towards them in order to have any hope of securing the clemency of the gods. ‘What a true picture of the Popish monks’, comments Gordon ironically. However, between the bonzes of Rome and the bonzes of China, the former undoubtedly come out top in terms of deceptiveness and the pursuit of sensual pleasures and of power. From this point of view, writes Gordon, the Chinese bonzes ‘are but babes to their elder brothers of Rome’. He also relates another episode, likewise drawn from Le Comte: a young bonze allowed himself to be taken by two companions from house to house seated on sharp nails that pricked him until he bled. He asked each person he met to relieve him of his suffering by buying a nail for six pence, and with it merit in the heavens (in that they thereby contributed to the building of a temple to the god Fo).40 This anecdote offered Gordon an excuse to denounce the much greater brazenness with which ‘the Popish Priests’ converted the blood and suffering of martyrs ‘into ready cash’. A further aspect considered by Gordon in the text requires attention. He alludes to the entrapment of women and children by Catholic missionaries, and their predatory sexual behaviour, all clearly at odds not only with their ecclesiastical vows of celibacy and the zeal with which they exhorted sexual 39  See Du Halde, The General History of China, iii, 37–38. On the history of the ‘discovery of Buddhism’, see Pocock, ‘Gibbon and the Idol Fo’; Pocock, Barbarism and Religion, iv: Barbarians, Savages and Empires (2005), Chapter 7, pp. 110-32. 40  Le Comte, Memoirs and Observations, pp. 326–27, 329.

Chapter II

70

continence, but also their harsh condemnation of male homosexual practices, which were widespread amongst the Chinese, especially in urban areas:41 ‘As to the lewd arts and debaucheries of the Bonzes with women, and one another, […] no doubt such craft and lewdness are abominable, but not peculiar to the Eastern Bonzes. Many debaucheries, more hideous, have been practised by our Romish Bonzes, and by artifices as impious. […] Any lewd priest having the blind guidance of a fine lady’s conscience, may too easily guide her into his own arms’.42 Likewise, in 1727, during his forced exile in London, Alberto Radicati di Passerano, a contemporary admirer of The Independent Whig, defended the education he had given his daughter Tecla Maria (rumours were circulated that she had been ‘brought up very badly, with no instruction in matters of faith and knowing nothing about either God or the saints’): he had protected her, he argued, from the malice of the confessors, as confession is ‘the rock against which the innocence of young virgins is invariably wrecked’.43 7. Years earlier Gordon had already dealt in another brief text with the theme of the shared aspiration of the priestly hierarchies of East and West to instil subjection in their flocks and in those who held secular power, cloaking themselves in a veil of holiness and encouraging absurd superstitions. The work in question, included in the enlarged edition of the Independent Whig of 1735, was eloquently entitled ‘The Teachers of All Sects (who lay claim to Power and Submission) how apt to reproach, yet how much resembling each other’. In a few short pages Gordon reported the vivid description of the ‘Lama or arch-priest of Great Tartary’ sketched out by the Italian traveller Gian Francesco Gemelli41 

‘By contrast, the Chinese felt that priestly seductions of Chinese women were far more serious. There was an extreme sensitivity in Chinese society over the sexual violations of women, and this was reflected in the strict separation of the sexes in worship’ (Mungello, The Great Encounter of China and the West, p. 114). 42  As an example, Gordon cited a notorious recent scandal: the Cadière-Girard trial of 1730–31 (the last witchcraft trial in the francophone world): Catherine Cadière had accused Jean-Baptiste Girard, her Jesuit confessor, of bewitching and raping her, while Girard had claimed that Cadière was guilty of slander. Her acquittal was greeted by great public rejoicing. See Kuznicki, ‘Sorcery and Publicity: The Cadière-Girard Scandal’. In the same pages Gordon also referred to the ‘Jetzer affair’ in Berne in 1506, a sensational faking of apparitions of the Virgin Mary to the visionary Hans Jetzer, possible agreed in advance with the Dominican friars of the monastery in which he lived. Four monks were eventually burnt at the stake, and Jetzer banned from the city. Gordon presents Jetzer, ‘the poor deluded dotard’, as the mere victim of the monks’ plots. See Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, pp. 32–33. 43  See Tarantino, ‘Alternative Hierarchies’.

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

71

Careri (c. 1644–1724) in the extensive section devoted to China in his Voyage Round the World,44 a detailed six-volume account of his wanderings published in Naples in 1699, and included, in an English translation, in the anthology of travel reports prepared by the publishers Awnsham and John Churchill.45 Gemelli-Careri’s description of the religions professed in the Chinese empire started with the Tartar cults (centred on veneration of the god Natagai and of his wife), in that they were practised by the emperor, who came from that region. Gemelli-Careri reported the ‘impious and ridiculous adoration’ paid by the Tartars ‘to a living man, whom they call Lama’. Not only the inhabitants but also the kings of Tartary all made a pilgrimage to pay tribute to him, seated in semidarkness on a magnificent throne adorned with gold and silver and illuminated by hanging lamps. The pilgrims prostrated themselves and kissed his foot. So blindly did they worship him that they considered it a privilege and an antidote to ill-fortune and illness to obtain his excrement, for which they paid large sums of money. They then carried it around their neck in a gold box and even ate it mixed with meat.46 The Lama, continued Gordon, citing Gemelli-Careri, resided in the kingdom of Baratoula: although afforded regal dignity, he did not interfere in government activities, which were delegated to another figure known as Deva, or Dena, ‘which is the reason why they say there are two kings in Baratoula’. Gordon, who was usually anxious to denounce the hunger for power and the opulence 44 

Gemelli-Careri left Naples on 13 June 1693, and returned on 3 December 1698, travelling round the world in an easterly direction. He visited Turkey, Persia, Indostan, China, the Philippines, and Mexico. 45  A Collection of Voyages and Travels. This very valuable collection (which was available in Collins’s library) is the first of the great eighteenth-century compilations of voyages, divided according to regions and arranged chronologically, taking most of the pre-1600 material from Richard Hakluyt (Principal Navigations) and those to 1625 from Samuel Purchas (Hakluytus Posthumus). A second edition was published in 1732. The third edition (1744) contains a copious index as well as the two rare volumes known as the Harleian Voyages, compiled from Lord Oxford’s library by Thomas Osborne. Gordon quotes from the first edition, the one found in Collins’s library. The Churchill brothers’ first joint publication was Locke’s Second Letter Concerning Toleration. The philosopher encouraged and gave advice about what became their most famous publication, A Collection of Voyages and Travels. 46  See also Gordon, ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’, Disc. ix, Sect. v (‘The inevitable Danger of trusting Ecclesiastical Persons with any Worldly Power, or any Share in Government’), pp. 177–80, at p. 179: ‘The De la Lami is not only the Chief Pontif of the Eastern Tartars, but treated like a Deity, and stiled Everlasting Father. What may not an impostor, so important, so adored and thought to be Almighty and Immortal, undertake and accomplish? […] They even eat his Dung as sanctified dainties’.

Chapter II

72

shamelessly displayed by the Christian clergy, and above all by the Pope, who embodied its extreme degeneration, was quick to draw significant analogies, and equally significant differences, between the ‘pope of rude and savage Tartars’ and ‘the Lama of Rome’. The latter, ‘like the other, is often stiled out our Lord God the Pope, and like him receives adorations’. However, ‘in pretensions to power and mischief, the other is a babe to him. Here an old crazy friar […] affects a power over heaven, earth, and hell; and, though he cannot restore a lost finger, pretends to save or damn the souls of all mankind’.47 Even worse (but at the same time most revelatory for an understanding of the Sinophilia of Gordon, who never stopped urgently reiterating the need to curb the secular ambitions of the clergy), the Roman pontiff ‘is so far from living peaceably, and not meddling with government, that he has made and murdered kings, claims a sovereignty over sovereigns, and has butchered, or caused to be butchered a great part of the world, for the ambition of governing the rest’. Admittedly, ‘the Lama’s foot is as good as the Pope’s toe’, but ‘in grimace, pomp, the awe of sounds and appearances, his holiness still exceeds. Nor do we find that the Lama ever set his sanctified foot upon the necks of princes’. The first, specific characteristic of the ideal society Gordon tried to delineate by resorting to the utopian model (albeit geographically identified and not without contradictions) of a distant Orient is thus the non-interference of the clergy in the governing of public affairs. Gordon’s brief essay ends with the observation (and an implicit call to adopt a reasonable attitude of toleration towards religious alterity) that Christian missionaries in the East Indies, quick to be shocked by other people’s superstitions, omitted to acknowledge the similarities with their own: The fathers missionaries were greatly astonished, and pierced at the heart with the wild and nasty superstitions of the East India Pagans; who, in some Places, whenever a cow urines, run to that fountain to drink and wash, as an act of religion. 47 

See Gordon, ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’, Disc. ix, Sect. vi, p. 182. See also ‘The Shocking Antipathy of Popery to Commons Sense and Christian Charity’, in Gordon, A Collection of Papers, no. 13, pp. 72–73: ‘Father Alexander de Rhodes makes a bold, and, I think, an impious observation concerning the Chinese, though he makes it from what he thinks a spirit of piety. After he has computed the number of souls in that immense Empire to be “two hundred and fifty millions”, he adds, with a sigh, “that at least five millions of them are damned every year”. That is, the whole Nation are as surely damned as they die, and as fast as they die. […] Could it be half so great a crime to deny the existence of a Deity as to conceive the Deity to be such a cruel, such a diabolical Being?’ Alexander de Rhodes (1591–1660) was a French Jesuit missionary and lexicographer. The author, amongst several other works, of the Dictionarium Annamiticum Lusitanum et Latinum (Rome, 1651), he made a lasting impact on Christianity in Vietnam.

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

73

Now, I would be glad to know of the reverend fathers, wherein the cow’s holy water and theirs differ in cleanliness and efficacy? Is theirs a stronger or a sweeter lee for the soul; or does it more potently purify from sin?48

But it is a generally sympathetic representation of China that emerges in Gordon’s reflections, even in his uncompleted History of England, a further example of ‘ancient constitutional narrative’: Nor can there be a better reason given for the difference found between China, so full of people and happiness, and other countries equally fertile, but very miserable and almost desart; than that the magistrates and men of learning there profess no religion but that of nature; and elsewhere the state fosters superstition and supports a host of holy juglers to propagate and defend it with awful jargon and solemn and expensive buffonries, to the utter extinction of religion, to the enslaving of all the rest in their persons, fortunes and faculties, but to their own infinite lucre and importance.49

8. The crucial theme of religious toleration as an exemplary practice of the Far East and as a distinctive sign of a society and a government that pursue the happiness and prosperity of all (and which only dies out when the introduction of a cult, of a religion, of an extraneous ecclesiastical structure tangibly threaten the survival and peaceful coexistence of different faiths and persuasions) returns forcefully in another article by Gordon, this time devoted to Japan (‘The Hierarchy of Rome, how like that of Japan. The obvious Danger to a State from Popish Missionaries’). Also published in 1735, in the third volume of the Independent Whig, it was presumably written in the years of Gordon’s greatest commitment to opposing the ecclesiastical policy of Robert Walpole, which was strongly conditioned, as from 1724, by his alliance with Edmund Gibson, the staunchly Trinitarian Bishop of London, known to his enemies as ‘Walpole’s Pope’ and presented on stage as the Solicitor General in Gordon’s satirical representation of Whiston’s trial. The arguments developed by Gordon in this article are drawn extensively from the entry for ‘Japan’ in Bayle’s Dictionnaire historique et critique (1704). First he points out a number of analogies between Catholic bishops and the Japanese bonzes: the latter also profess to lead celibate lives (though ‘they are allowed the use of boys as a practice holy and virtuous’); to benefit the souls of the 48 

See Gordon, ‘Of the Strange Force of Education’: ‘What shall we say to all these strange fondnesses, strange, but natural? They are effects of habit and prepossession, from which no man is wholly free; by which almost all men are wholly governed; and from all this a good lesson is to be learned, how men ought to use one another’. 49  Gordon, History of England (BL MS Add. 20780), fol. 211v.

Chapter II

74

dead, they encourage donations and devout ejaculations (so very similar, Gordon observes, to the forms of devotion prescribed by the Jesuit Father Paul de Barry, ironically attacked by Pascal in his Provincial Letters); moreover, they are subject to an ‘infallible judge in matters of religion [who] makes unerring decisions about public and private worship, and about points necessary to be believed concerning the Deity’. But then Gordon draws his readers’ attention to a very important difference, giving it greater emphasis than it had in Bayle’s text (which in turn drew on a summary of the Histoire de l’église du Japon by Jean Crasset, promptly published in the Journal des Sçavants in 1689): ‘There is […] one good thing to be said of the monks of Japan; and in it they differ as much from the Romish monks, as they agree with them in impurities and devout knavery. They are of twelve different sects, or religions, and each has full liberty to follow their own. They say, that the bodies of men can be akin, but their understandings know no kindred’. And Gordon comments, with a blatant polemical allusion to the Popish (Catholic but just as High Church) denial of the right of private judgement: ‘This is to assert the natural independency of conscience, and even Christian charity; to the infamy of such Christians, who will allow no man to have a conscience, unless he has their conscience; which, by the character that in this they give of themselves, no honest man would choose to have’. Gordon then picks up Bayle’s narration at the point where he responds to the question posed by Crasset about why God had allowed the Christians to be harshly persecuted without their sacrifice being the prelude to the extensive Christianization of those lands, as instead had occurred in the first centuries of Christianity.50 Bayle’s response is unambiguous, even though he concedes something to the expectations of the vigilant censors: Christianity of the sixteenth century had no hope for the same favour and protection of God. […] It was a bloody, a murdering religion. […] Conversion to the true God was the best choice that the Japanese could make; but wanting sufficient light to renounce their false religion, they had no other but that of practising persecution, or suffering it. […] They could neither preserve their ancient government nor religion, but by destroying the Christians, who sooner or later would have destroyed both. […] So that considering things in policy only, we must agree that the persecution suffered by the Christians there, was, in the course of measures,

50 

In 1614 shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu had signed an edict which banned Christianity, ex­ pelled all Christian missionaries, and barred Christians from practicing their religion in Japan.

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

75

dictated by prudence, for preventing the overthrow of the monarchy, and the ravage of a whole state.51

In this text by Gordon, who both simplifies and amplifies Bayle’s outspoken stance52 and throws it into the face both of those who still hoped to see the restoration of the Stuarts and those who doggedly wished to preserve an incomplete Reformation (because traces of infallibility and persecution still persisted amongst English Protestants), there is no mention of the well-known and unexpected likeness drawn by Bayle, in a note in the same article on Japan, between 51 

Trenchard and Gordon, The Independent Whig (1816), pp. 53–54. Also Robert Challe (1659–1721), considered to be the ‘père du deisme français’ and the anonymous author of the Difficultés sur la religion proposées au R. P. Malebranche (published posthumously for the first time in 1767, extensively reworked and ‘atheized’ by Jacques-André Naigeon and the Baron d’Holbach), had written in his Journal d’un Voyage fait aux Indes Orientales (1721), where it is possible to glimpse the first signs of the wavering of his Catholic conscience, that the Jesuit missionaries in Japan had been persecuted ‘non comme chrétiens, la religion n’y entrait en rien, mais seulement et uniquement comme perturbateurs de l’Etat’: they were not, then, ‘martyrs de Jésus-Christ’, but ‘de l’avarice et de la cupidité’. In a similar fashion, the Marquis of Argens and Voltaire, faced by the objection that Japan and China had adopted, in the fairly recent past, sometimes brutal forms of exclusion in reaction to the penetration of Christian missionaries, reputedly replied that a correct reading of those events suggested they should not be interpreted as direct forms of intolerance but as inevitable responses to religious conflictuality and to the spirit of intolerance that the Europeans, through their missionary activities, had introduced. See Challe, Difficultés sur la religion; Minuti, ‘Orientalismo e idea di tolleranza’, pp. 904–05; Minuti, Orientalismo e idee di tolleranza, pp. 99–116. 52  Bayle’s dislike of missionaries’ efforts to convert people is also apparent in his discussion of China. In the Commentaire philosophique (1686), he imagines a Chinese imperial council warmly advising the emperor to throw the Jesuits out of his dominions. According to Bayle, if the Emperor had followed their wise advice, they would have been ejected ‘not because the Chinese were intolerant but exactly the reverse, because the Jesuits were’ (Israel, Enlightenment Contested, p. 597). Gordon would present similar arguments before Sallust, The Works, ed. and trans. by Gordon: ‘If the Chinese knew further, that these holy strollers [the missionaries], professing at first only a desire to be heard, only to instruct them, to pray for them, and to propose to them the meek principles of the Gospel […], would yet assume a very different style, when they had once gained sufficient numbers of bigots to follow and support them; that they would then boldly claim a public establishment, and public rents […]; that they would haughtily assert an absolute power in spirituals, that is, in whatever they pleased to call so; […] that they would promote continual strife, about mere words, and dry names, and internal, involuntary motions of the mind; nay, kill and destroy, for such scandalous considerations: […] would [they] not wonder at their boldness, pity the unhappy countries where such pestilent instruments bore sway, rejoice that [their] own had escaped them, and study to preserve it for ever from them? Indeed […] there could not be a surer method of reducing the mighty numbers of people in China, with all their mighty wealth, trade, and happiness, than by establishing a monkish hierarchy there, or any such hierarchy as considers only itself, and all things for itself ’ (Disc. ix, Sect. vi, pp. 180–83).

76

Chapter II

Spinoza’s monist metaphysics and the beliefs of various Japanese Buddhist sects (‘it is manifest’, says Bayle, ‘that [Spinoza] has taught as well as these Japanese priests that the first principle of all things, and of all beings, which compose the universe, are but one and the same substance’).53 However, such an omission is unsurprising, in that Gordon, though a friend and admirer of Unitarians, Dissenters, and freethinkers, was primarily and more realistically interested in gradually promoting a tolerant political society capable of preserving its independence, keeping the spiritual sphere distinct from, if not subjected to, the temporal one.54 Much more significant is the absence of any reference to a work which for Montesquieu, Voltaire, and the Encyclopédie would become (in the subsequent French translation of Pierre Des Maizeaux) an essential reference text for a knowledge of Japanese life: The History of Japan by the German naturalist traveller Engelbert Kaempfer. Published posthumously in London in two volumes (1727–28), the English translation from the German was carried out, at the request of Hans Sloane, secretary of the Royal Society, by the Zurich scholar Johann Caspar Scheuchzer.55 Kaempfer had also given an admiring account of the principle of harmony and equilibrium between the different religions to be found in Japan, as in the majority of the eastern countries. It was precisely the habit of tolerance and freedom of conscience that had enabled the initial rapid spread of Christianity in Japan. But the ambition and aggressive policy of the Jesuit missionaries and their unwillingness to coexist in harmony with other religious beliefs had led to ferocious persecution. The Japanese had been driven to regiment individual lives (subjecting them to the ‘watchful Eye’ of innumer53  Bayle, The Dictionary Historical and Critical, iii (1736), 550. See Israel, Enlightenment Contested, pp. 594–98; Weststeijn, ‘Spinoza Sinicus: An Asian Paragraph’. 54  An emphatic statement in The Independent Whig (no. 36) reads as follows: ‘Civil and religious liberty are certain signs of each other, and live and die together; but I believe I may lay it down for a maxim, that in any country where there is ne’er a separatist from the church, there is ne’er a freeman in the state’. See also Gordon, History of England, fol. 43. According to Thomson, ‘Popery, Politics, and Private Judgement’, at p. 352, ‘it is unclear what Trenchard and Gordon’s views on the relationship between church and state were. There is an apparent tension in their work between a view of the spiritual as a subset of the secular (the “civic” religion) or a radical division (the more “Lockean” option)’. On the republicans’ outward ‘accommodation’ to the post-revolutionary regime as well as on ‘the intrinsic ambiguity of the republican concept of toleration’, see Zurbuchen, ‘Republicanism and Toleration’. 55  Collins, who was Gordon’s highly cultured and wealthy mentor, had immediately ordered two copies, as the list of subscribers included in the first volume of the History and his own library catalogue (which, however, registered only one) reveal. He also possessed a copy of the only work published by Kaempfer in his lifetime, the Amoenitates exoticae (1712), a substantial collection of naturalistic documentation and observations on countries he had visited.

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

77

able ‘overseers and rigid censors’), to break off relations with the outside world, and to pursue a policy of economic self-sufficiency, contravening what, since classical times, had been regarded as a ‘law of nature’, namely the reciprocal economic dependence of nations as a precondition for and impulse towards peaceful commercial relations. But from direct observation of an apparently florid and extraordinarily populous nation, Kaempfer had developed the conviction that the stability and security of a nation required an absolute monarchy, albeit an enlightened and virtuous one, a policy of isolation, and rigid, arbitrary control of the industriousness, submissiveness, and even the virtue of its subjects56 — in short, a view that was diametrically opposed to the political and institutional perspective of Gordon (his ideal of freedom as non-domination), which on the one hand required the exercising of power to be bound by compliance with laws, and exemplary conduct in the eyes of subjects and of history,57 and, on the other, the responsibility of the people (still essentially all propertied males) in keeping vigilant watch over those in power. Moreover, the authors of Cato’s Letters consistently praise civil liberty, labour, and commerce, ‘which in turn produce plenty’ (no. 67). In that same celebrated collection, where he graphically sustains that ‘men and societies have no possible human security but certain and express laws, setting express bounds to the power of their magistrates, ascertaining the measure of power as well as subjection, and restraining alike the exorbitances of both prince and people’, Gordon notes that Father Le Comte, in talking about the government of China, had illustrated ‘the wise provision made by the laws to check the great power of the Emperor’: Nor is interest a less motive than reputation to the Emperor, to be guided by the ancient customs, and to adhere to the laws, which are framed so much for his advantage, that he cannot violate them, without obvious prejudice to his own authority, nor alter them, without bringing his kingdom into confusion […]; so that the Emperor’s surest way to preserve his crown, is to observe the laws, and give an entire obedience to them (Cato’s Letters, no. 72).

9. In the weighty reflections preceding his successful English translation of the works of Tacitus (1728–31), Gordon also repeatedly lays emphasis on the duty of the emperor of China to act as an example: he is subject to the censure 56 

See Minuti, Orientalismo e idee di tolleranza, pp. 78–99; Mervart, ‘A Closed Country in the Open Seas’. 57  ‘The free judgment of Posterity [is] a powerful warning to Princes, to reign with moderation and to detest flatterers’ (Tacitus, The Works of Tacitus, ed. and trans. by Gordon, iv, 309; see also v, 85–87).

Chapter II

78

of incorruptible scholar-bureaucrats, selected according to merit and free from confessional bonds, and both parties are required to answer not only for their own abuses and failings but also for crimes committed by the people.58 In eighteenth-century England, Tacitus was deemed to be the ‘mentor of constitutional balance’ and, paradoxically (just consider the speech of Calgacus), the ‘definer of a British anti-Roman, northern, and commercial national identity’.59 Unsurprisingly then, some rather forced passages in Gordon’s translations, 60 and even more so the laudatory references to China in the preceding ‘Political Discourses’, appear to be the result of a deliberate attempt to allude to political affairs at the time: 58  ‘[The Chinese] say, it is a small matter for a Prince to punish crimes; he ought by the example of his own virtue to prevent crimes in others’ (Gordon, ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’, pp. 96–97; see also p. 134 and Gordon, ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’, pp. 130– 31). As for Trenchard and Gordon, Cato’s Letters, ed. by Hamowy, no. 72, Gordon’s source is Le Comte’s Nouveaux Mémoires (more specifically the section entitled ‘De la politique et du gouvernement des Chinois’). Simon de la Loubère’s Du royaume de Siam (1691), which would so greatly influence Montesquieu’s reflections on Oriental despotism founded on fear, is instead the direct source of another of the ‘Discourses’ with which Gordon prefaced his Tacitus, where he observes that the security and prosperity of princes and peoples were deeply interrelated: only free men in a free state, who were not, that is, vulnerable to arbitrary dispossession, would come to the aid of their princes when they were under threat. As for the inhabitants of Siam, on the other hand, ‘since they must bear the same yoke under any prince whatsoever, and since it is impossible to bear a heavier, they never concern themselves about the fortune of their Prince. […] So much does a Prince gain by boundless power, by enslaving his People, and having an interest and purse different from them. […] Why should they defend him, since by losing him, they lose nothing?’ (Gordon, ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’, pp. 195–97). 59 

Weinbrot, ‘Some Uses of Tacitism in Eighteenth-Century Britain’, p. 169. For more about the ambivalent contribution of Tacitus and Sallust to both traditions of political thought — the republican and absolutist, the civic humanist and the prudential — see Burke, ‘A Survey of the Popularity of Ancient Historians’; Burke, ‘Translating Histories’; Skinner, ‘The Republican Ideal’; Osmond, ‘“Princeps Historiae Romanae”’. 60  ‘When a writer such as Gordon produces a translation which we would consider accurate from page after page, but chooses to make additions or use “loaded” words in crucial passages, where his version can be read as a continuation of his Whig message, it seems fair to conclude that he consciously did so and that he may be charged with distortion of the original’ (Benario, ‘Gordon’s Tacitus’, at p. 109). See also Benario, ‘The Classics in Southern Higher Education’; Winnifrith, ‘Latin Historians’, pp. 284–88. According to Richard, The Founders and the Classics, p. 81, Gordon’s translation ‘was more literal in passages denouncing the Roman emperors than in the few which noted their good qualities’. In his Introduction to Sallust’s Works, Gordon maintains that ‘the great point in translating, is to pursue, or, if possible, rather to assume and possess, the Spirit and Character of the Author. To render him word for word, will be insipid’.

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

79

Whatever were the speculations of our Author [Tacitus] about religion, his morality is strong and pure, full of benevolence to human society, full of every generous passion, and every noble principle. […] Which is the better instructor, he who has a store of faith, but wants virtue, and abounds not in good sense; or he who wants the first, but abounds in knowledge and the rules of righteousness? It is for this we consult Tacitus, not for his theological speculations. […] According to the accounts of our best travellers concerning China, the Mandarins, who are the Nobility of the country, the Learned, and such as hold the Magistracy, have no religion at all, their governing principle is public spirit; their principle study the good of the State; and they are noted for politeness and virtue. The Bonzes or Priests, on the contrary, pretend to extraordinary devotion; but are vicious, sordid, base, and void of every virtue private or public. Here is an instance of a Monarchy the most thriving of any upon earth, or that ever was upon earth; an Empire that combines more people than half the rest of the globe, these people full of industry and arts; yet administred by men who are of no particular religion, or sect, but are guided by the natural lights of Reason and Morality; nor knows it a greater blot and disgrace than the vile lives of it’s Priests and Religious. […] Does not this merit reflection, that a Church blended and debauched with excessive wealth and power, is worse, a thousand times worse, than none […]? Were the Romish Church, or any other Church that teaches pains and penalties; any that exalts Ecclesiastics into power, and leaves them the sword, or wields it for them, once established in China, there would in a little time be an end of their incredible numbers; and it would soon feel the cruel curse attending the change.61

10. Though simplified and distorted, the representation of China as a prosperous and peaceful nation, rationally organized and ever attentive to the welfare of its subjects, and wisely preserved from the arbitrary will of princes and priests, crops up regularly in Gordon’s assiduous thirty-year labour, turning it into a kind of secular and republican catechesis. In this framework, a curious pamphlet included in the posthumous 1751 collection of Gordon and Trenchard’s writings, and whose attribution to Gordon is demonstrated by Collins’s library catalogue, acquires importance and significance. The title of the work is A True Account of a Revelation lately discover’d to Jeremiah van Husen, a German Physician, as he 61 

Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, pp. 168–70. It is worth recalling here how those who expressed their appreciation for China when it was represented as atheist and virtuous exposed themselves to frightening reprisals. Jonathan Israel reports the outcome of a public controversy about China which took place in the Baltic university of Greifswald in May 1739. The conclusion was that ‘since the Chinese do not acknowledge the highest God it is entirely unsurprising that they understand nothing of the duties Man owes to the Deity and that, from this, one sees, how necessary it is, to use caution whenever one thinks of praising the philosophy of the Chinese’. See Israel, ‘Admiration of China and Classical Thought’, p. 21.

Chapter II

80

deliver’d in an Oath before John Shepherd, Esq; one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace, foretelling many strange events, particularly the End of the World (1719).62 Presented as a faithful and detailed account of the raving declarations made under oath on 1 June 1719 by Jeremiah van Husen, an obscure German doctor living in London, it lists a long series of extraordinary events Van Husen believed would precede the imminent end of the world, predicted to occur at midnight on 29 September 1731. They were events that everyone would have perceived as paradoxical and unrealizable: just think of the prediction that the Italian bishops would abandon, in the summer of 1721, their claim to infallibility and supremacy, or that the French Church would adhere to the Reformation, or 62 

It was published in three successive editions of the same year by James Roberts, the copious printer of pamphlets with a preference for unorthodox ones. Roberts also published the anonymous Irregular Dissertation, Occasioned by the Reading of Father Du Halde’s Description of China, an irreverent and ambiguous work often taken as an early example of the erosion in England of the myth of China, which, the text states, ‘is supposed to be the compleatest model of an arbitrary government’, and where ‘the will of the Prince’ is the only maxim of government and where religion is ‘intirely political’ (pp. 3, 15, 23, 85). Yet the sardonic tone pervading it from the title onwards reveals that the real polemical target of the text is not China, and not just the Jesuits and the Catholic converts (‘soldier[s] listed in the service of the European Lama’), but, once again, Walpolean England (inclined to censorious interventions and the mercenary domestication of the press) and the political role of the ecclesiastical hierarchy (see, for example, pp. 33, 71, and 96–99: ‘Would that pernicious Doctrine of Divine Right had been confined to China; surely it can be of no earthly use, but putting the worst governors on a level with the best. […] [In China] merit is the only Title to Preferment! For shame, let not that seem a novelty to us, who never once saw that Golden Rule transgressed. […] [The Emperor of China] not only reads the news-papers, but he takes the merit of writing them too. […] The [Chinese] Gazette [is] the only new-paper tolerated in all the Empire. […] If ever an Act is attempted here for retrenching the licentiousness of the press, I would recommend the plan of this Gazette as worthy of some regard; particularly in this shape, that no article of news or political dissertation whatever, be published except in the London Gazette or Gazetteer; and that the Bench of Bishops should compose a form of excommunication against all who shall presume to disbelieve what is there set forth’). It must be remembered that in 1737 Walpole had succeeded in passing the Licensing Act and that the Daily Gazetteer defended this legal restraint on the liberty of writing by condemning the licentiousness of the age (significantly, on 23 October 1739, the Daily Gazetteer also questioned the validity of the Chinese system of public censorship). The Irregular Dissertation concludes with the sarcastic proposal that the many children regularly abandoned in the streets in China should be deported en masse to England, indoctrinated from the age of six onwards through assiduous reading of the Gazetteer, bestowed at eighteen with the surname Fitz-Robert, and ‘virtuously trained up in ministerial principles’ (pp. 101–07). As is known, the name FitzRoy (‘son of the King’) was given to illegitimate children of English royalty. For more about the Irregular Dissertation, see [Fielding], ‘A Literary Article’; Fan, ‘Chinese Fables and Anti-Walpole Journalism’, pp. 255–56; Leites, ‘Confucianism in Eighteenth-Century England’. I am grateful to Professor Martin J. Powers for directing my attention to this text.

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

81

that the Turks would embrace Christianity, the papacy would move to Geneva, toleration would be granted in France, Spain, and Italy, the Swedes and the Scots would all turn ‘Mahometans’, the laws against immorality would be abolished in England, and Africa would become ‘of one mind and one faith with America’. A few decades earlier the widespread millenarianist expectations had prompted crowds of followers to revere the charismatic figure of Sabbatai Zevi, who travelled across Europe proclaiming himself to be the Messiah, until, that is, he decided to convert to Islam.63 On the other hand there is no evidence that Jeremiah van Husen ever really existed. This character, or at least the description of his prophesies, and the subtly ironic interpretation (though apparently professed by an educated ‘believer’) of the hidden meaning of his predictions (astutely published only the following year and with a different publisher)64 can be taken to be nothing other than a satirical forgery by Gordon himself, designed to highlight the specious arguments used by theologians to underpin their abstruse interpretations of the biblical prophesies.65 If the Christian millenarianists considered the conversion of the Jews to be a necessary precondition for the Second Coming of Jesus, unsurprisingly one of the miraculous events — as catastrophic as they were unrealistic — which Jeremiah van Husen claimed would precede the end of the 63 

Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi; Van der Wall, ‘A Precursor of Christ or a Jewish Impostor?’. Gordon, Ruah Kritikon: A Short Comment Upon the Revelation of Jeremiah Van Husen. The text alludes hyperbolically to the existence of numerous manuscript and printed versions of the sworn declaration of Van Husen in a wide range of languages, from High-Dutch to Spanish, Italian, Arabic, Syriac, Hebrew, and Ethiopian. It also affirms that these had been carefully collated to produce a definitive and densely annotated text including a further prophesy (taken, the anonymous editor explains, from a fourth Roberts edition, which, in reality, never existed), that is, the impossible elevation of Benjamin Hoadly to the seat of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Two of the fantastic interpretations of Van Husen’s prophesies in the footnotes to this text are worth citing: the first stresses that the Turks would embrace not the Church but Christianity, and that this was to be understood ‘in a popular sense, as it means Unitarians, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Independents, Muggletonians, or any other of the Sectaries whom the C[hurc]h has appointed to be damn’d for Hereticks and Schismaticks’ (p. 12); the second interprets the passage ‘[In] July, Antichrist is discover’d in Asia, and Men universally there call themselves Biblists’, identifying the Antichrist as the tyranny of priests and ‘Biblists’ with Freethinkers (‘[with ‘Biblist’ being supposedly] derived from Βίβλω and signif[ying] in the Latin, Liber’). In note 30 there is even a polemical reference to an almost contemporary text (Gordon, The Apology for the Danger of the Church) by the ‘profane and ludicrous wit Mr. G[ordo]n’: how can one not see here a derisive declaration of the paternity of those notes? Furthermore, the attribution of both texts to Gordon was suggested in The Monthly Review, iv, 1750–51, 315 (art. 44). 64 

65 

Just a few years earlier Anthony Collins had argued that analogical interpretation ‘can never teach a man any thing at all’ (Collins, A Vindication of the Divine Attributes, p. 37).

Chapter II

82

world in September 1722 was the mass conversion of the Chinese into ‘papists’ (and the curious designation of ‘Father Mezerial’, as their Pope).66 11. We could possibly describe Gordon as a ‘religious atheist’. This oxymoronic definition, which seems to me to be very apt, comes from a periodical of the age, The Freethinker, in which the term is used to describe the antithesis to the intolerant bigot: ‘The religious atheist delights in goodness, and in everything, that is reasonable and beautiful. He loves mankind; he is social and publick spirited’ (collected edition in three volumes, 1722–23, no. 22; originally published twice a week in London, 1718–19). Gordon was undoubtedly a convinced anti-cleric and untiringly supported toleration of all views. He repeatedly emphasized the reasonableness of the positions of the Unitarians, who denied the Trinity and Christ’s divinity and advocated a simplified Christianity, the dogmatic core of which essentially translated into a message of equality and charity. According to him, ‘Religion which does not produce Morality deserves another name. […] Morality is social Virtue, or rather the Mother of all social Virtues: It wishes and promotes unlimited and universal Happiness to the whole World. It regards not a Christian more than a Jew or an Indian, any further than as he is a better Citizen; and not so much, if he be not’.67 It is thus hardly surprising if Confucius’s moral philosophy, as far as he understood it, appealed so much to him. In the same text in which, in 1732, Gordon sustained that in China ‘all men of consideration […] are Deists’ and expressed the hope that the Christian bigots would convert into ‘rational and sober Chineses’, he added, a few lines further on: It is a great presumption, ’tis very uncandid, to charge men with opinions which they do not own; it is worse to charge them with opinions which they utterly disown. It is unjust to charge them with one obnoxious opinion in consequence of another, nay, to take both for granted; to suppose a Man is a Deist, and therefore a Republican; or a Republican and therefore a Deist. […] It is not a wicked thing, to prejudice his Majesty against any part of his good Subjects? To bring a false, at best

66 

The 1720 commentary corrects ‘Mezerial’ to ‘Mezeriac’, plausibly an allusion to the wellknown French mathematician and philologist Claude-Gaspard Bachet de Méziriac (1581– 1638), a member of the Society of Jesus for just one year, in 1601. Monsieur Méziriac (‘a French critic, and a very learned Man’) is also mentioned in the introduction to Sallust, The Works, ed. and trans. by Gordon (at p. xiii). 67  Trenchard and Gordon, The Independent Whig (1816), dedication ‘To the Lower House of Convocation’, p. xiii.

Gordon’s ‘Sensible Chinese’

83

precarious accusation against them? To represent them to Him as Republicans, and to Bigots as Infidels?68

Gordon clearly resorts here to a device common in deistic rhetoric, which David Berman has described as ‘suppression of atheism’: ‘They dispute that there are atheistic monsters, and they do so […] to disarm the knights-errant and to protect themselves’.69 In fact, Gordon denies the existence in England of dangerous legions of deists and republicans, explaining that ‘the bulk of mankind will always be rather credulous, than incredulous’ and that ‘a Commonwealth in England will never be other than a dream, existing only in crazy heads’. Indeed, he adds elusively, ‘nothing could possibly have kept alive a Republican Spirit […] but the apparent ill designs and violent measures of the Court and the Clergy’.70 It is evident, in this context, that the ‘republican spirit’ does not necessarily refer to a kingless government, nor could it be reconciled with an absolute monarchy.71 Le Comte had observed how the Chinese, who had first learnt of ‘the Name of Republick’ from the Dutch, imagined a Republic as an ungovernable ‘Monster with many Heads’. However, ‘as they bear an aversion to Republican Government, so are they yet more set against Tyranny and Oppression. […] An unbounded Authority which the Laws give the Emperor, and a Necessity which the same Laws lay upon him to use that Authority with moderation and discretion, are the two props which have for so many ages supported the great fabric of the Chinese Monarchy’.72 Conversely, this would also give rise to the severe objections of Montesquieu, Boulanger, Diderot, and the Baron d’Holbach (the French translator of many of Gordon’s writings, but of none of his ‘Chinese 68 

Gordon, An Examination of the Facts and Reasonings in the Lord Bishop of Chichester’s Sermon, pp. 61–62. The Jesuit argument that ‘Chinese religion’ was originally deist is also echoed in David Hume’s essay ‘Of Superstition and Enthusiasm’ (1741). 69  Berman, ‘David Hume and the Suppression of “Atheism”’, p. 387. 70  Gordon, An Examination of the Facts and Reasonings in the Lord Bishop of Chichester’s Sermon, pp. 60, 47. 71  English republicanism, as J. G. A. Pocock aptly said, was ‘a language, not a programme’ (Harrington, The Political Works, ed. by Pocock, p.  15). As Blair Worden clarifies it, ‘a commonwealth where law prevailed, whether or not it had a king, was a “free state”: its antithesis was tyranny’. English republicans ‘offered first and foremost a criticism of tyrants rather than of kings’. They ‘resented the clergy’s interference in politics’. Moreover, they believed that the occupancy of government posts should be ‘determined by virtue and merit instead of favour’ and that accountability should be enforced by regular ‘rotation’ of office-holders. See Worden, ‘English Republicanism’, pp. 446–47, 453, 469, 472. 72  Le Comte, Memoirs and Observations, p. 243.

Chapter II

84

texts’). Chinese paternalism would appear to these ‘Sinophobe’ thinkers as a deceptive shield for tyranny: ‘If China is only an occasional despotism, it is still tyrannic and thence to be condemned’.73 By contrast, Sir William Temple (1628–99), an author with whom Gordon was very familiar, had, on the basis of a close reading of Father Couplet’s Confucius Sinarum Philosophus, come up with a more generous or perhaps more complex interpretation of the Confucian idea of government: Those are the best governments where the best men govern; and […] the difference is not so great in the forms of magistracy, as in the persons of magistrates; […] no people can be happy but under good governments, and no governments happy but over good men; […] for the felicity of mankind, all men in a nation, from the prince to the meanest peasant, should endeavour to be good, and wise and virtuous, as far as his own thoughts, the precepts of others, or the laws of his own country can instruct him. […] The Kingdom of China seems […] in practice to excel the very speculations of other men, and all those imaginary schemes of the European wits, the Institutions of Xenophon, the Republick of Plato, the Utopia’s or Oceana’s of our Modern Writers.74

With a similar attitude, Gordon, one of the most effective popularizers of radical views in Walpolean England, concluded that ‘men who are oppressed, or who foresee inevitable oppression, will be naturally thinking of the means of security and escape’,75 or possibly dreaming about distant civilizations.

73 

Guy, The French Image of China, pp. 306–307. Temple, The Works, i, 50; iii, 323, 332. On the frontispiece of John Toland’s edition of The Oceana by James Harrinton (1700), there is an allegory of ‘republican liberty’, where William III is likened to Brutus, and both are portrayed as restorers of liberty. Above them are portraits of Moses, Solon, Lycurgus, Numa Pompilius, and, in the centre of the group, Confucius, suggesting a continuity with the ancient prudence of Athens, Rome, and Sparta, and a certain syncretism or ‘religious relativism’. See Champion, Republican Learning, pp. 248–51. 75  Gordon, An Examination of the Facts and Reasonings in the Lord Bishop of Chichester’s Sermon, p. 47. 74 

Chapter III

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’: Gordon’s Tacitus and Sallust, and his History of England

G

ordon’s fame was undoubtedly due in large measure to the success of his English translation of the much-admired 1687 edition of Tacitus by the Dutch critic Theodor de Rycke (1640–90).1 It has been interestingly asserted that ‘there are suggestive general parallels between Gordon, the scourge of the establishment and yet part of it, and both Sallust, himself corrupt, attacking corruption, and Tacitus, deploring the excesses of the Roman imperialist system, of which he was a privileged member’.2 However, as was noted in the first chapter, the overworked refrain that the Whig ministry finally won the overt and full support of the ‘younger Cato’ needs to be toned down. The two Catilinarian conspiracies had obvious counterparts in the British history of the period — and Gordon was strongly anti-Jacobite — so almost inevitably he sometimes found himself on the same side as Walpole.3

1 

Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, p. 173. The Oxford History of Literary Translation in English, ed. by Gillespie and Hopkins, p. 523. 3  The ninth of Gordon’s ‘Political Discourses’ prefixed to the second folio volume of the translation contains a damning judgement of James II: ‘In receiving it [the Monarchy] he received a Trust for the benefit of the People, attended with all reasonable advantages, with all possible glory to himself. This Trust he ingloriously perverted. […] When he ought to have made the Law his rule, according to his duty and his oath, he made his Will his Law’. 2 

Chapter III

86

Gordon’s Tacitus is ‘the enemy to tyrants’. It is Tacitus’s exposure of tyranny and servility that mainly concerns Gordon, rather than his counselling on political prudence. For this reason, the ‘Political Discourses’ preceding Gordon’s translation of Tacitus — occasionally misquoted under a Latin title in modern scholarship4 — proved to have a tangible influence on continental interpretations of Tacitus in the second half of the eighteenth century. Furthermore, the ‘positivist’ Tacitus, with his tragic vision of history devoid of any providential guarantee and his emphasis on uncovering the true causes of events, also clearly appealed to Gordon’s sensibility.5 The first of the two folio volumes of Gordon’s translation of Tacitus (described by Gibbon in his Memoirs as ‘pompous folios’6), published by subscription in 1728 and containing the Annales, is, it must be said, introduced by a dedication to Walpole, ‘the first to promote the following work in a public manner’.7 This is followed by ten ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’.8 4 

Bitterling, ‘Studien zur Wirkung des Cornelius Tacitus’; von Stackelberg, Tacitus in der Romania, p. 234; La Penna, ‘Tacito nella riflessione politica di Diderot’, p. 136; Raskolnikoff, Histoire romaine, p. 344. 5  On the rationalism and scepticism which crop up in Sallust’s work as well, in spite of the vague ‘Platonism’ of his prooemia, see La Penna, ‘Storiografia di senatori’, at p. 83. 6  For more about Gibbon’s Tacitus, see Quinn, ‘“Meditating Tacitus”: Gibbon’s Adaptation’. 7  In the ‘Introduction’ to Sallust, The Works, ed. and trans. by Gordon, Gordon recalls how the initial impulse to translate Tacitus came from a ‘woollen-draper’ in the City, Mr. Pate, ‘who knows more of the character and excellencies of the Classics than many who profess languages and science, and bear learned appellations. He said, pleasantly, “That Tacitus was indeed unclassicked, but not translated”’. Gordon was clearly annoyed by the criticism heaped on his translation by some of his ‘learned’ readers. However, ‘to comply with the common taste, [he] made many alterations in the second edition [1737]; and eased several sentences, which were reckoned stiff ’. 8  i. Upon the former English Translations of Tacitus; ii. Upon Tacitus and his Writings; iii. Upon Cæsar the Dictator; iv. Upon Octavius Cæsar, afterwards called Augustus; v. Of Governments free and arbitrary, more especially that of the Cæsars; vi. Of the old Law of Treason by the Emperors perverted and extended; vii. Of the Accusations, and Accusers under the Emperors; viii. Of the general Debasement of Spirit and Adulation which accompany Power unlimited; ix. Upon Courts; x. Of Armies and Conquest. John Whiston commented, in his handwritten notes, that Gordon’s Tacitus ‘was in general esteemed; but surely his style is too bombast’. He also claimed that the commentaries were derivative ‘from the Italian of Malvezzi Scipio Ammirato, and a Spanish author, Don Balthazar Alamos Banientos’ (Nichols, Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, i, 710). His account clearly muddles the names of three commentators, Virgilio Marvezzi, Scipione Ammirato, and Baltasar Álamos de Barrientos, only the last of whom is referred to by Gordon, and then in somewhat belittling terms. On another famous Italian commentator on Tacitus, Gordon says that the ‘censure passed upon Tacitus by Boccalini, as

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

87

In the Political Discourses, I have taken a method of my own, in reasoning largely upon topics which to me seemed of the most moment to this free Nation, and giving an idea of the politics of the Cæsars; of the ‘vis, artes et instrumenta regni’, as they are called by Tacitus. I have vindicated the principles of civil Liberty.9

The ‘Discourses’ touch on the merits and defects of previous English translations (Savile, Greenway, the composite version of 169810), Tacitus’s pictorial style and historical method (‘a masterly Historian, who draws events from their first sources’), his political acumen (‘a profound Politician who takes off every disguise’, and a ‘declared enemy to Tyrants’), his veracity, his Christian detractors (‘a penny given by an atheist to a beggar, is better alms than a half penny given by a believer’11), the dictatorship of Caesar (‘the acquiring and exercising of power by force is tyranny, nor is success any proof of right’12), and the servility of Virgil and Horace.13 Moreover, the ‘Discourses’ are interspersed with cogent reflections on the reasonableness of standing up to tyranny,14 the superiority and happiness of free states (where ‘the laws are certain and inviolable’), the value of free speech,15 if he maliciously taught lessons of Tyranny; is so senseless and absurd, that it merits no notice, much less confutation’ (see Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, pp. 173–76). 9  Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, p. 183. 10  According to Gordon, the English Tacitus of 1698 was over-reliant on the French translation by Amelot de La Houssaye. The most distinguished and most Tory contributors to that version included John Dryden and Sir Roger L’Estrange. Political prejudice evidently prompted some of Gordon’s hostility to it. See Zwicker and Bywaters, ‘Politics and Translation’, pp. 320–21; Pocock, Barbarism and Religion, iii: The First Decline and Fall (2003), p. 315; Winnifrith, ‘Latin Historians’, pp. 284–85. 11  Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, p. 172. Gordon is quoting himself from Trenchard and Gordon, Cato’s Letters, ed. by Hamowy, no. 49 (21 October 1721): ‘That black is not white, and that two and two make four, is as true out of the mouth of an atheist, as out of the mouth of an apostle: a penny given by an atheist to a beggar, is better alms than a half penny given by a believer; and the good sense of an atheist is preferable to the mistakes of a good Christian’. 12  Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, pp. 194–95. Again he quotes himself from Trenchard and Gordon, Cato’s Letters, ed. by Hamowy, no. 55 (‘The lawfulness of killing Julius Caesar considered, and defended, against Dr. Prideaux’). 13  Weinbrot, ‘Some Uses of Tacitism in Eighteenth-Century Britain’, p. 174. 14  ‘It is certainly unlawful to resist Government; but it is certainly lawful to resist the deviation from Government, to resist what destroys Government and men. To resist the abuse of Government, is to assist Government. […] An absolute Prince is of all others the most insecure; as he proceeds by no rule of Law; he can have no rule of Safety. He acts by violence, and violence is the only remedy against him’ (Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, pp. 221, 226). 15  Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, pp. 250, 258–59, 279–80.

Chapter III

88

the tendency of slaves and courtiers to behave slavishly,16 and the costs and dangers of a policy of military conquest.17 Nor does Gordon neglect questions of political contingency, when, writing about Constantine the Great, he affirms that ‘all the Princes, even the persecuting Princes who went before him, hurt not Religion so much as he did, by blending it unnaturally with Politicks and Power, by laying the foundations of a spiritual tyranny, and enabling the Bishop of Rome, and other great Prelates, to exert the domineering spirit, which before they had but ill concealed: a spirit which has almost extinguished that of the Gospel’ (Disc. vii, Sect. iv). The second volume, published in 1731,18 contains the five books of the Historiae, the treatise on the Germanic tribes (De origine et situ Germanorum), and the life of Agricola (De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae), prefixed by a further twelve ‘Political Discourses’.19 The whole volume is dedicated to Frederic, prince of Wales,20 while the treatise on Germany is separately dedicated to John, Lord 16 

‘Servitude breeds servility. If you live at the mercy of someone else, you will always have the strongest motives for playing safe. There will be many choices, in other words, that you will be disposed to avoid, and many others that you will be disposed to make, and the cumulative effect will be to place extensive restraints on your freedom of action. Among the classical moralists who meditated on this connection between slavery and slavishness, Tacitus probably exercised the strongest influence on the early-modern republican writers on liberty’ (Skinner, Hobbes and Republican Liberty, pp. 213–14). 17  ‘The Spaniard, to secure to himself the possession of America, destroyed more lives than he had subjects in Europe; and his mighty Empire there, with his mountains of treasure, bears indeed an awful sound; yet it is allowed that he has lost much more than he got, besides the crying guilt of murdering a large part of the Globe’ (Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, p. 353). Similar comments about the detrimental effects of expelling the Moors from Spain and the merciless Christian fanaticism of the Spanish colonizers of Mexico can be found in Gordon, ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’, pp. 120, 175–76. 18  At least three other editions followed (1737, 1753, 1770), and a two-volume Dublin edition was soon printed by A. Rhames, for R. Gunne, and J. Smith, and W. Bruce (1728–32). A Camelot edition, edited by Arthur Galton, was first published in 1890 with the title The Reign of Tiberius: Out of the First Six Annals of Tacitus, with his Account of Germany, and The Life of Agricola. An audiobook, read by thirteen alternating voices, of the first volume of the second edition of Gordon’s Tacitus is available at . 19  i. Of the Emperors who are the subject of the ensuing History: Of their Ministers, their Misfortunes, and the causes of their Fall; ii. Of competition amongst the Ministers of a Prince, and their corruption. The evil effects of indolence in a Prince; iii. Of public Frugality; iv. Of Princes; v. The same subject continued; vi. Of Bigotry in Princes; vii. Of Ministers; viii. The same subject continued; ix. Of the People; x. The same subject continued; xi. Of Nobility; xii. Of public Teaching and Teachers. 20  ‘Your Royal Highness is born to govern a People the most free upon the earth, a People always free, yet always obedient to Royal Authority tempered by Laws, but ever impatient of

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

89

Carteret (whose diplomatic talents and ability to speak German with the King made him particularly odious to Walpole21), and the life of Agricola, as already mentioned, to the Duke of Argyll. The twelve ‘Discourses’ promise once again ‘to vindicate the Deity from the impious charge of protecting Tyrants, to maintain the cause of Liberty and shew it’s [sic] blessings, to asserts the rights of men and of society, and to display the sad consequence of public corruption, with the beauty and benefit of public virtue’.22 The human right to freedom of speech is strongly reasserted,23 and the duty of a prince is regarded as being that of adhering to the law and considering oneself ‘as made for the People’s protection, not the People for his pleasure. […] As the Public Good is the general rule of Laws, these Laws are the rule and boundaries of the Prince’s power’.24 It is worth noticing that the sixth Discourse deals in Lockean terms with the theme of the inviolability of conscience: To believe in God, to trust in him, and to adore him, is the duty of a Prince and of all men. But for the love of God to hurt and distress men, is amazing wickedness and phrenzy. Conscience is the most sacred property, and has as just a right to protection from the Sovereign as have the lives and fortunes of his Subjects.25

Interestingly, the eighth Discourse rejects the increasingly popular assumption that physical and geographical factors had a predominant influence on national characters: It is not so much by the genius of the Clime, by the heat or coldness of a Country, that the characters of the inhabitants are to be known and estimated, as by the nature of their Government, and the wisdom, or defect, or corruption of their Laws. It is thus that men from Savages and Banditti, become just and humane, or from virtuous and free, abject slaves and barbarians.26 encroachments and oppression’. 21  ‘I wonder we do not hear of a Motion for removing a great English Minister, for being a Foreigner: To prove him to be one, he need only be abused for living and speaking like one’ (Gordon, Warning to the Whigs, p. 24). 22  Gordon, ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’, p. 11. 23  ‘In a Nation of Freedom and Laws, all men claim a right to judge and censure for them­ selves, a right which they often abuse and misapply, but ought never to lose’ (Gordon, ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’, p. 85). 24  Gordon, ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’, p. 67. 25  Gordon, ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’, p. 122. 26  Gordon, ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’, p. 166. The idea that the political

90

Chapter III

Finally, the twelfth Discourse lingers on the ‘fatal and ungodly consequences of allowing force in matters of Religion and Conscience’ and touches on the tricky issue of education: ’Tis the interest of the rulers, as well as duty, to provide that the public education be rational and virtuous, and the public morals be sound, that the people have just notions of right and wrong, that they be not taught slavery instead of subjection; delusion under the name of religion; and folly for devotion. […] The raising and recommending of Public Spirit [is] necessary to the prosperity of every Country, and even to the preservation of all.27

organization and moral qualities of a people were necessarily interdependent is a key concept in Tacitus’s political thought, as emerges in particular in the contrast between the political liberty of the Germans and the subjugation of the Parthians and the Romans. It is perhaps possible to detect a citation of Tacitus’s remarks on the ‘vigorous and invincible’ liberty of the Germans (‘near two hundred and ten years, so long have we been conquering Germany’) in Gordon’s reflections on Ireland in his History of England: ‘Ireland was conquered with surprising ease before it had hardly seen or felt the Forces from England; but it cost much blood and Treasure, incessant struggles, infinite Wars and Danger to secure it; so much and so many, that the best Judges think it a misfortune to England that there ever was such an Island as Ireland. It was conquered in a Year or two, but not subdued in many Centuries’ (Gordon, History of England, fol. 27v; cf. Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, p. 56). 27  ‘As the eighteenth century progressed, the teaching of republicanism became ever less precise, its appeal ever more amorphous. The movement became ever more a language, ever less a programme. It spoke less and less of particular constitutional defects, more and more of “public spirit” and of “the spirit of liberty”. […] Increasingly the energies of republicanism were concentrated on education’ (Worden, ‘The Revolution of 1688–9’, p. 269). In the second of his ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’ (sect. x), Gordon recalls that ‘these great men of Rome, who either had no notion of Religion, or one quite opposite to that publicly received and practiced, regarded it as far as it was interwoven with the constitution of the state, and subservient to the ends of Government’. In the third of the ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’ (sect. vi), he adds that ‘surely worse than no religion is that religion which extinguishes humanity and warrants barbarity’. It should be noted that the deistic conception of ‘intellectual equalitarianism’ coexisted with the fond conviction that only a select few could accede to philosophical truth and that it was opportune to provide or maintain a civic religion for everyone else. In fact, one of the most singular texts of eighteenth-century anti-Christian journalism, Examen critique des Apologistes de la Religion Chrétienne (1766) — attributed to Nicolas Fréret (1688–1749), a severely erudite figure who served for a long time as secretary of the Académie des Inscriptions — prompted the eloquent objections of the Sicilian abbot Nicola Spedalieri (1740–95): ‘A simpleton is always a simpleton; if he wishes to examine he will not know where to start; if he makes some attempt he will soon fall back into his ordinary stupidity. […] [The deists] laugh at both revelation and grace, judging one to be the invention of the politics of priests and the other the imagination of visionaries. All the worse for them, because they will have the task of finding a way to guide men towards natural religion that is proportionate to each person’s

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

91

As for the actual translation of Tacitus, while Gordon’s effort has many merits,28 he occasionally allowed his anticlerical prejudices and political convictions to get the better of him.29 For example, in describing the persecution of Christians in Nero’s time, he inserted a gratuitous insult of Rome, obviously levelled at the Catholic Church: ‘In it the filthy glut of iniquity never fails to find popular reverence and distinction’.30 And in the explicit reference to a ‘natural cause’ for the eclipse of the moon, which in Annales 1. 23 disorients the troubled minds, ‘pliant to superstition’, of the soldiers who had revolted in Pannonia, one can note an anticipation of the peremptory warning given by Gordon years later to Londoners shaken and disturbed by an earthquake (‘We are not to seek for, or to suppose supernatural causes, where natural ones are obvious and certain: The latter will satisfy every reasonable Mind’).31 Above all, his emphasis on the passages dealing abilities’ (Spedalieri, Analisi dell’Esame critico del Signor Fréret, pp. 198, 202). 28  A good example of the effectiveness and accuracy of his translation is the famous passage in Tacitus, Annales 4. 20 (about Lepidus, the Tiberian senator whose political wisdom receives Tacitus’s earnest praise): ‘Hence I am driven to doubt, whether the good liking of Princes to some, and their antipathy to others, be, like other things, owing to blind fate and the lot of nativity, or whether the difference be determined by the wisdom and conduct of men; and whether it be possible to proceed in a safe path, at an equal distance from abrupt contumacy, and slavish submission, neither courting power, nor threatened by it’ (Tacitus, The Works of Tacitus, ed. and trans. by Gordon, i, 214). His vivid translation of Tacitus, Historiae 3. 83 (the account of the crowd’s conduct as the Vitellians and Flavians fought for possession of Rome, rendered by Tacitus under the motif of the foedum spectaculum) reads as follows: ‘About the combatants the people were gathered as spectators; and, as if they had been only attending the representation of a fight exhibited for public amusement and sport, they favoured and espoused now these, anon those, with theatrical shouts and clappings: Nay, as often as either side recoiled, and particulars had fled into houses, or lay hid in shops, they insisted upon their being dragged out and slain, and thus came to enjoy themselves the largest part of the prey. For, whilst the soldiers were only pursuing blood and slaughter, the spoil fell to the possession of the commonalty’ (Tacitus, The Works of Tacitus, ed. and trans. by Gordon, iii, 260–61). 29 

See Benario, ‘Gordon’s Tacitus’, p. 109; Winnifrith, ‘Latin Historians’, p. 285. Tacitus, The Works of Tacitus, ed. and trans. by Gordon, ii, 230. Cf. Tacitus, Annales, 15. 14. 31  Tacitus, The Works of Tacitus, ed. and trans. by Gordon, i, 29. Cf. Gordon, A Letter of Consolation and Counsel, p. 4. A further echo of Tacitus, Annales — and more specifically his speech in defence of the historian Cremutius Cordus in Tacitus, Annales 4. 35 (‘dictis dicta ultus est’) — can be detected in the refrain of the Letter, ‘Let Books answer Books’. Cordus was prosecuted for publishing a history in which he praised Brutus and called Cassius ‘the last of the Romans’. The famous comment on Cordus’s trial and the regime’s attempts to control historiography and memory is translated effectively by Gordon: ‘We may justly mock the stupidity of those, who imagine that they can, by present power, extinguish the lights and memory of succeeding time; for, quite otherwise, the punishment of writers exalts the credit of 30 

92

Chapter III

with free speech do not escape him. In Annales 1. 72 and 2. 87, the extension, under Tiberius, of the law of lese-majesty to include not only facta (actions) but also dicta (words and writings), which had previously gone unpunished (‘actions were punished, but words were free’), and the prince’s distaste for adulation, offered Gordon the opportunity to more clearly emphasize the contraction of freedom of expression that the slide into tyranny inevitably involved: ‘Freedom of speech became cramped and insecure under such a Prince, one who dreaded liberty, and abhorred flattery’.32 The surviving text of the Annales breaks off just before the death of the Roman senator Thrasea Paetus, robbing us of Tacitus’s final reflections on him.33 This has prompted various scholarly conjectures: Thrasea is represented either as an ‘intractable idealist’ who refused unwisely to acknowledge the realities of the Principate, or alternately as the champion of senatorial libertas condemned unjustly by the tyrant.34 Gordon’s admiration for Thrasea’s ‘undaunted exercise of liberty’ transpires clearly from his translation: his ‘freedom broke the bondage which hung upon the minds of others’, and Nero dreaded ‘the countenance, the spirit, and free speech of that great man’ (vultumque et spiritus et libertatem insontis ultro extimuit).35

the writings; nor did ever foreign Kings, or any else, who exercised the like cruelty, reap other fruit from it, than infamy to themselves, and glory to the sufferers’ (Tacitus, The Works of Tacitus, ed. and trans. by Gordon, i, 227–28). 32  Tacitus, The Works of Tacitus, ed. and trans. by Gordon, i, 67, 139. See Weinbrot, ‘Some Uses of Tacitism in Eighteenth-Century Britain’, p. 172. 33  Thrasea, the leader of the Stoic opposition to Nero’s regime (he walked out of the Senate session when it was decreed that thanks were to be offered to the gods after Nero had had his mother Agrippina killed, and stayed away from the session that decided on the deification of Poppea) and the author of a biography of Cato the Younger, was implicated in the Pisonian conspiracy of ad 65 and, after being accused of lese-majesty, was forced to take his own life. 34  See Strunk, ‘Saving the Life of a Foolish Poet’. In the monograph on Agricola, which even Tacitus seemed to have wanted to place amongst the illustrious victims of autocracy, such as Thrasea or his son-in-law Helvidius Priscus, the theatrical (and useless) gestures of republican revolt were contrasted with the ‘prudence and moderation’ of Agricola. ‘For, by no contumacy of his, nor by any vain ostentation of a spirit of Liberty ill-timed, did he court fame or urge his fate’. See Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, pp. 72, 112–13 (cf. Tacitus, De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae, 2. 1–4; 42. 6). 35  Tacitus, The Works of Tacitus, ed. and trans. by Gordon, iii, 271 (cf. Tacitus, Historiae, 4. 5); ii, 176, 280 (cf. Tacitus, Annales, 14. 49; 16. 24). See also iv, 72 (cf. Tacitus, De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae, 2).

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

93

By slightly reworking the opening statement of Tacitus’s Historiae 1. 1 (that truth requires the historian neither to flatter nor write in hatred of his rulers), Gordon also emphasizes the Tacitean warning to refrain from calumny and fruitless invective disguised as free speech: It is true, that against a fawning writer we are easily upon our guard; but greedily swallowed are calumnies and bitterness; since, while in sycophancy there appears the detestable blot of servitude and debasement, detraction and invective come covered under the disguise of boldness and free speech.36

Very significantly, Galba’s no less famous speech for the adoption of Piso (Historiae 1. 16) — which reveals the definitive loss of hope that the principate might be associated with libertas — was translated by Gordon in a way that effectively conveys the deep connection between virtue and liberty: You are about to govern the Romans; a people of too little virtue to support complete liberty, of too much spirit to bear absolute bondage.37

Finally, Gordon’s treatment of the speech of Calgacus, the Caledonian chieftain who famously complained about the depredations of Agricola’s armies, cannot go unnoticed: ‘To spoil, to butcher, and to commit every kind of violence, they style by a lying name Government, and, when they have spread a general desolation, call it Peace’.38 The use of the word ‘Government’ for imperium has been interpreted as referring to Gordon’s own objections to Walpole’s heavy-handed regime. 39 Moreover, Calgacus’s speech is echoed to some extent in Gordon’s ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’ (Disc. vii, Sect. xi), where he says that ‘Popery has extirpated Christianity, and is called Christianity; and evangelical humility and forbearance are preached and extolled in the midst of pride and flames’.40 36 

Tacitus, The Works of Tacitus, ed. and trans. by Gordon, iii, 2. Another passage about the rhetorical abuse of ‘freedom’, ‘slavery’, and other such terms, this time from Petilius Cerialis’s speech to the Treviri and Lingones (Tacitus, Historiae, 4. 73–74), is also worth quoting : ‘[Germans] tempt you with Liberty, with fine pretences and fine names. Nor did ever man thirst for dominion to himself and to put bonds upon others, without employing the same popular sounds’ (iii, 346). 37  Tacitus, The Works of Tacitus, ed. and trans. by Gordon, iii, 17–18. 38  Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, p. 99. Cf. Tacitus, De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae, 30. 7: ‘Auferre, trucidare, rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant’. 39  Benario, ‘Gordon’s Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’, p. 110. 40  For more on the view that Christianity was not to be propagated either by force or

94

Chapter III

2. The translation of Sallust’s works appeared in London in 1744.41 A Dublin edition came out in the same year. The whole volume was dedicated to the duke of Cumberland, the ‘martial boy’ and future hero of Culloden.42 Separate dedications of Catiline’s Conspiracy, The Orations of Cicero against Catiline, and The War against Jugurtha were made respectively to Evelyn, the last duke of Kingston (at whose seat, Stretton in Hampshire, Gordon stayed in 1743); ‘Mr. Doddinton’ (George Bubb Dodington), the future Baron Melcombe, and an affluent friend of Frederick, prince of Wales; and George, the third earl of Cholmondeley and Walpole’s son-in-law. Sallust’s ‘apparent and unpardonable’ prejudices towards Cicero and ‘his flattery and partiality to Caesar’ justify the inclusion of a translation of the Orationes in Catilinam.43 The four speeches and two letters preserved intact from Sallust’s fragmentary Historiae,44 and the two possibly spurious Epistles of Sallust to Caesar concerning the Regulation of the Commonwealth,45 termiwith ‘the aid of wealth or power’, see also the last of Gordon’s ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’. On the analogy between the violent expansion of the Roman empire and that of the Roman Church (and even Spanish conquest of the New World and French expansion at the expense of Britain), see Weinbrot, ‘Some Uses of Tacitism in Eighteenth-Century Britain’, pp. 180–81; Ginzburg, ‘Making Things Strange’, pp. 13–14. 41  John Whiston observed that his Sallust was ‘not so well esteemed as his Tacitus’ (Nichols, Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, i, 710). 42  ‘You know, that virtue made men noble, that it is with royalty as with nobility: […] that distinction of High and Low are not produced from humane Nature, but from the Nature of Society; and that the protection and defence of society are the most amiable ground of title and elevation: […] that even courage, without benevolence and justice, is a great solecism, as religion without virtue’ (Sallust, The Works, ed. and trans. by Gordon, p. xi). 43  Sallust, The Works, ed. and trans. by Gordon, p.  iv. The famously slanderous insult (inquilinus civis Urbis Romae) levelled against Cicero by Catiline (Sallust, Catilinae coniuratio 31) becomes even more abusive in Gordon’s version (‘such an Upstart as Cicero, a Roman only by Admission’). See Catiline’s Conspiracy, in Sallust, The Works, ed. and trans. by Gordon, p. 27. 44  The fragments are arranged as follows: 1. The Speech of M. Æmilius Lepidus, the Consul, against Sylla; 2. The Speech of L. Philippus against Lepidus; 3. Pompey’s Letter to the Senate; 4. The Oration of Licinius, the Tribune: Addressed to the People; 5. The Letter which Mithridates, King of Pontus, sent to Arsaces, King of Parthia; 6. The Speech of Marcus [sic] Cotta, the Consul, to the People. 45  ‘Some think, not without ground’, says Gordon in his customary introductory note, ‘that these Epistles are placed and called wrong; that this [the First Epistle] is the Second, and the other should come First. It is questioned too, by some good judges, whether they be genuine. It is my opinion, that they are. The Latin is pure, and appears to be that of Sallust; and the strains in both are, like his, severe invectives, many of them too true, but all very virulent, against the Administration before the Usurpation of Caesar; many high compliments, full of flattery, upon that Usurper; and many strokes of self-sufficiency and praise’ (p. 309). In the second Epistle, there

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

95

nate the volume. The nine ‘Political Discourses’46 preceding this work lay stress on the balance of powers, the preeminence of legislative over executive power, the impracticability of directly exercising popular sovereignty (‘the unrepresented multitude never can govern’), and the dangers of clerical imposture.47 Sallust, whose life and political career fell within a period that saw the initial transformation of the city-state government into the Principate, had been variously interpreted in Renaissance Europe as the defender of republican liberty and as the champion of established order. The scholar most influential in shaping Sallust’s reputation as a theorist of political prudence had been the Flemishborn editor of Tacitus, Justus Lipsius (1547–1606). And a tinge of Lipsius’s conditional approval of the practice of diffidentia and corruptio in governing a State — ‘providing they were used in moderation and as long as the end justified the means’48 — can be seen in Gordon’s slippery reasoning on the topic: If this be a great Breach upon private Conscience, and private Morals, to encourage Perjury and Falshood, it would be a greater Breach of public conscience and Morals, to risque the State, or any great public Advantage, for want of it; and, in the Casuistry of a State, the greater Good cancels the smaller Evil. […] Whatever is a strong plea (p. 328) for ‘real Worth and Merit, and not Wealth and Riches’ to prevail in the choice of praetors and consuls (neque praetor neque consul ex opulentia verum ex dignitate creetur). 46  i. Of Faction and Parties; ii. Of Patriots and Parricides; iii. Of the Resignation of Sylla; iv. Of the Pride and ill Conduct of the Patricians, after the Expulsion of Kings; v. Of the Institution and Power of the Popular Tribunes; vi. Of Public Corruption, particularly that of the Romans; vii. Of the Corruption in the Roman Seats of Justice, and the Oppression in the Provinces; viii. Of Civil War; ix. Of the Mutability of Government (the last one was dedicated to Archibald Campbell, one of the founders of the Royal Bank of Scotland, who had succeeded his brother John to the title of Duke of Argyll in October 1743). 47  ‘Both Liberty and Power are known and justified by their bounds. […] They who execute Laws, are, indeed limited; but the Lawmakers know no limitation. The Power of the Three States is, therefore, unbounded; and Subjects are only so far free, as the Legislative permits. […] Indeed Liberty doth not only imply Limitation, but can never be secure, where is not limited. Liberty without Limits is Licentiousness, which is Popular Tyranny; as unbounded Power in the Prince is Single Tyranny’ (pp. 179 [wrongly paged, for 197], 202). ‘Popular Sovereignty (I mean the Populace not duly represented) is popular Licentiousness, which is destructive of regular Liberty. […] But it would be a much greater corruption, to cure popular License by establishing Tyranny; that is, by giving absolute Power to one Man to prevent the Abuse of Liberty in many’ (pp. 83, 96). ‘Whoever can mould the Conscience of a Man, can mould a Man […]; a consideration which ought to be an eternal Warning to all Nations, and all Governments, never to suffer any Man, or Body of Men, to make Religion a Stalking-Horse to Power and Property’ (‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’, pp. 170, 177). 48  Osmond, ‘“Princeps Historiae Romanae”’, p. 124.

Chapter III

96

tends to save or secure the Public, or to mend its Condition, is not Corruption. […] Corruption in a State is a deviation from our Duty to the Public, upon private Motives. […] Reasons of State […] are often just, though they quadrate not with the simple and exact Ideas of Justice. […] I am far from making, or intending by what I have said, any Apology for Corruption. I hate Corruption as much as I love what it tends to destroy, Liberty, Peace, and Justice. I mean only to shew, that what sounds like Corruption, may not be Corruption; and that it is not so much the Act, as the Characters and Designs of Men, that constitute it.49

Above all else, Gordon emphasizes the merits of mixed government, with the growth of the Commons’ ‘share in the Legislature’ dated rather later (as we will see shortly) than the History of England suggests: The most equal and perfect Government amongst the Romans, was their first Government; that of King, Senate, and People, and it is the most perfect of all Governments. […] The Form of Three Estates is the most perfect Form, as it comprehends every material Interest in a Country, and balances all. […] In all the English Reigns, from the Conquest to the Reformation, the Liberty of England was very defective, and therefore the English Government was imperfect. In all the Struggles between the King and the Barons, it was only for absolute Power to the Crown, or absolute Independency in the Barons: The People were never further considered, that as they joined one Side, or the other; the King or the Nobles. […] The Commons had no Share in the Legislature, at least no equal and proportionable Share. […] Neither did it proceed from any Virtue in either the Crown or the Lords, but only from the Wealth and Strength of the Commons, that a Third Estate, that of the Commons, was established with proper Weight and Authority. These Three Estates constitute the most free, the most equal, and the most happy Government yet known in the World, or that ever can be known.50

49 

Gordon, ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’, pp. 90–98. Gordon, ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’, pp. 196–97. Cf. Gordon, History of Eng­ land, fols 43v, 279–81, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, pp. 294–95 (on ‘the excellency of a limited monarchy’) and ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’, p. 111 (on ‘tyranny worse than anarchy, or rather nothing than anarchy’). The classical sources for the ideal of a mixed government were Polybius’s opening comments in Book 6 of his Rise of the Roman Empire and Machiavelli’s restatement of the doctrine in his Discorsi (bk 1, chap. 2). ‘The extension of the concepts, institutions and ideology of republicanism to large states […] was achieved in both [the American and French] revolutions by the transformation of the neo-classical but also venerable and respectable principle of the representation of a whole country in representative institutions. The traditionally oligarchical parliaments and assemblies of estates became democratically elected legislatures and national assemblies’ (Koenigsberger, ‘Republicanism, Monarchy and Liberty’, at p. 74). 50 

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

97

The ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’ significantly end with a praising quotation of a celebrated passage from Sir Walter Raleigh’s History of the World dealing with the death of James’s eldest son, Henry, the prince of Wales. In fact, although ostensibly a recounting of historical facts from the Creation down to the third Macedonian War, Raleigh’s work, written during his imprisonment in the Tower of London from 1603 to 1616, also included commentary that was rightly construed by King James to be critical of his court.51 Listed below are a few quotations from Gordon’s Sallust, where additions made by the translator in crucial passages contain a warning to his contemporaries of the dire consequences of not ‘governing by Law’ and also his own (admittedly ambivalent) thoughts about the ‘multitude’.52 Sallust is the Latin historian who more than any other gave voice to the suffering and desperation of the lower social orders. Cataline’s followers did not consist only of corrupt, bankrupt nobles, but also impoverished members of the rural populations of Etruria, unemployed seasonal labourers, offspring of people prescribed by Silla as enemies of the state, and an exasperated mass of debtors hounded by usurers. The underlying motivation of these categories is expressed in the celebrated message of Caius Manlius to Quintus Marcius Rex (Catilinae coniuratio 33), translated by Gordon with evident enthusiasm: ‘For us; our pursuit is neither Wealth nor Power, though these be the two great Sources of all the Wars and Combustions amongst Men. What we seek is Liberty; that Liberty which no virtuous Man will lose, but together with his Life’ (libertatem, quam nemo bonus nisi cum anima simul amittit).53 In his rendering of Sallust’s description of the special powers conferred on a consul for the sole purpose of protecting State security in exceptionally serious and urgent circumstances (Catilinae coniuratio 29. 3), Gordon emphasized that such powers could not be exercised ‘unless by an Ordinance of the People in their 51  In Gordon, History of England, Raleigh is defined without reserve as ‘the greatest Subject of his Time’ (fol. 449v). Raleigh’s History of the World is also cited with approval in the ‘Introduction’ to Sallust, The Works, ed. and trans. by Gordon (p. xiv). The notion that the source of the two Houses’s part in law-making was independent of the king had been famously asserted in William Lambarde’s Archeion (written before 1591, first printed in 1635). See Weston, ‘England: Ancient Constitution and Common Law’, p. 394. 52  For instance, Gordon’s abstract (at p. 305) introducing the speech of Cotta the Consul describes it as that ‘of a wise and brave Man to an unreasonable Multitude’. See also the beginning of the first of Gordon, ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’: ‘In most Countries, they who blind and enslave the People, are popular, and reverenced; they who would enlighten and free them, hated and persecuted’. 53  Sallust, The Works, ed. and trans. by Gordon, pp. 28–29.

Chapter III

98

Assemblies’ (sine populi iussu).54 What is more, Caesar’s objection (quashed in the end by Cato’s arguments) that it would be unwise to execute the conspirators without a trial and without giving them an opportunity to appeal to the people, insofar as this was contrary to the ‘Genius of our State’ (aliena a re publica nostra) and would establish a dangerous precedent,55 seems to have touched a chord in Gordon. In his History of England, in fact, he employed similar terms to stigmatize the execution of Roger Mortimer, murderer of King Edward II: ‘A very illegal sentence against a very guilty man, as it might extend to the most innocent man’ (fol. 360r). It has frequently been observed that the tone of the Historiae is more markedly pessimistic than the two monographic works. Retracting his previous belief in the goodness of the ancient Romans, Sallust now explicitly asserted that the human propensity for vice and corruption was to be put down to a natural flaw in the human soul (vitium humani ingenii). Although the fragment just cited (1. 7), which has come to us indirectly (through quotations and references made by grammarians and commentators of various types), was not attributed to the textual tradition of the Historiae until after Gordon’s time, the latter must have discerned a radically pessimistic view of humanity in Sallust’s work, and, as was noted in the first chapter, have shared it. In the celebrated letter of Mithridates to Arsace, in which Sallust gets the king of Pontus to expound on the reasons for the war against Rome, the indignation of the historian, who sympathized with or least justified the subjugated peoples’ uprising against the misgovernment of the proconsuls, is quite apparent. It is worth looking at how Gordon seems to turn Mithridates’ vigorous protest into a denunciation of the greed and universalistic ambitions of the Papacy: The People of Rome have constantly had one and the same Motive for their Enmity to all the Nations, all the States, and Sovereignties of the Earth; it is the insatiable Passion for Riches, and universal Empire, that rouses them to Acts of Hostility.56

54 

Catiline’s Conspiracy, in Sallust, The Works, ed. and trans. by Gordon, p. 25. Catiline’s Conspiracy, pp. 45, 46 (cf. Catilinae coniuratio 51. 27: ‘Omnia mala exempla ex rebus bonis orta sunt. Sed ubi imperium ad ignaros eius aut minus bonos pervenit, novum illud exemplum ab dignis et idoneis ad indignos et non idoneos transfertur’). On the debate about the treatment of the Catilinarian conspirators and Cato’s departure from conventional virtue, see Kapust, ‘Cato’s Virtues and The Prince’. 56  Sallust, The Works, ed. and trans. by Gordon, p.  299. Cf. Tacitus, Historiae, 69. 5: ‘Namque Romanis cum nationibus, populis, regibus cunctis una et ea vetus causa bellandi est: cupido profunda imperii et divitiarum’. 55 

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

99

Also emblematic, finally, is Gordon’s Whig version of a passage from the Second Epistle to Caesar (who, it was still hoped, would ‘restore’ dignity and functionality to the republican institutions), recalling the nature of ‘the primitive Constitution of Rome’ and of republican liberty: By the primitive Constitution of Rome, as our Histories inform us, the People was divided in Two Orders, Patricians and Plebeians: Originally the Exercise of the supreme Jurisdiction was lodged in the former; but as the latter were the stronger Body, this superior Force often excited them to withdraw to Mount Aventine, in Defence of their Liberties: The constant Effect of which Secession was, that the Power of the Patricians was diminished, the Rights and Privileges of the People augmented. But what contributed most to the Security of their Liberty was this; the Laws had their due Force, and the Power of the Magistrate was subservient to them.57

3. Despite the reservations of Pope,58 Bolingbroke, and Gibbon, Gordon’s translations of Tacitus and Sallust were very popular, especially in the American colonies, where his edition of Tacitus became the most common version in public and private libraries. John Adams had two copies of Gordon’s Tacitus, while a friend of his, Josiah Quincy Jr, who was dying of tuberculosis, left to his son ‘Algernon Sidney’s works, John Locke’s works, Lord Bacon’s works, Gordon’s Tacitus, and Cato’s Letters’, in the hope that thereby ‘the spirit of liberty might rest upon him’. Thomas Jefferson, who possessed several of Gordon’s works, praised his Tacitus in particular.59 The Library Company of Philadelphia holds the copy (complete with fold marks) of Gordon’s Tacitus owned by John Dickinson (1732–1808), author of Letters from a Pennsylvania Farmer, who is principally known for having abstained from signing the Declaration of Independence in the conviction that it was still possible to remind the king of his contractual obligation to his American subjects.60 57 

Sallust, The Works, ed. and trans. by Gordon, p. 324. Cf. Epistulae ad Caesarem, ii, 5. 1–3: ‘In duas partes ego civitatem divisam arbitror, sicut a maioribus accepi, in Patres, et plebem. Antea in Patribus summa auctoritas erat, vis multo maxuma in plebe. Itaque saepius in civitate secessio fuit; semperque nobilitatis opes deminutae sunt, et ius populi amplificatum. Sed plebes eo libere agitabat, quia nullius potentia super leges erat; neque divitiis, aut superbia, sed bona fama factisque fortibus nobilis ignobilem anteibat’. 58  In a manuscript variation (after ver. 26) of his Epilogue to the Satires (1738), Pope jeers at Gordon: ‘There’s honest Tacitus once talk’d as big / But he is now an Independent Whig?’ 59  Jacobson, ‘Thomas Gordon’s Works of Tacitus’; Colbourn, The Lamp of Experience, Appendix ii; Benario, ‘Gordon’s Tacitus’, p.  113; Richard, The Founders and the Classics, pp. 80–81; Reinhold, ‘Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought’, p. 226; Scott, ‘Sallust, Thomas Gordon, and the Constitutional Debates’, p. 37. 60  See Bregman, ‘Reading under the Folds’; Soll, ‘J. G. A. Pocock’s Atlantic Republicanism’, p. 30.

100

Chapter III

In Europe, as we have seen, the ‘Political Discourses’ also circulated separately.61 The second edition of the joint French edition of the ‘Discourses’ on Tacitus and Sallust, published ‘l’an deuxième de la République Française, une et indivisible’, was significantly prefaced with the following Avis de l’Editeur: This work only circulated secretly in the Ancien Regime, insofar as it writes in favour of liberty and against the clergy and empire. Despite these restrictions, many editions were sold in France. As this work has become very rare and costly, we have decided to produce a new edition, which is more correct than previous ones. We feel bound to inform the reader that this work is by an Englishman who is extremely infatuated by the Constitution of his country, whose many defects we know so well. After having effectively shown that, above all things, and in every time, the monarchy, the clergy, and the aristocracy have been the greatest scourge of mankind, he declares his preference for the English form of government, which combines these three sources of all ills. However, his opinions in support of an aristo-demo-monarchic government must not be used in any way to endorse the perfidious objections of his enemies. We must not take from this work anything other than further illumination in order to fortify our love for republicanism; to avoid the errors and missteps of the ancient republicans; to make good use of our strengths, without abusing them; to overcome the difficulties that tyrants and the malcontent do not cease to multiply around us; and to put onto the order of the day the manners and the integrity capable of perpetuating amongst us order, abundance, and peace.62 61  The French translation of Gordon’s ‘Discourses’ was approved by the author and an­ nounced [in 1738] in the Bibliothèque Britannique. See the ‘Avertissement de la première édition’ (reprinted in the 1793/94 edition). Six years earlier (in 1732) a twenty-four-page review of the first volume of Gordon’s translation of the Works of Tacitus had been published in the Bibliothèque Raisonnée (T. 8, Second Partie). 62  ‘Cet Ouvrage ne circuloit qu’en contrebande, dans l’ancien régime, parce qu’il est écrit en faveur de la Liberté contre le despotisme du Sacerdoce et de l’Empire. Malgré ces entraves, il s’en est vendu plusieurs Éditions en France. Cet Ouvrage étant devenu très-rare et fort cher, nous nous sommes déterminés à en faire une nouvelle Édition, qui est plus correcte que les précédents. Nous croyons devoir avertir le Lecteur que cet Ouvrage est d’un Anglais, qui étoit extrémement engoué de la Constitution de son pays, dont nous connoissons les vices nombreux. Après avoir recueilli les faits les plus capables de prouver que par-tout, et dans tous les temps, la Royauté, le Sacerdoce et la Noblesse ont été les plus grands fiéaux de la terre, il donne cependant la préférence au Gouvernement anglais, qui réunit ces trois sources de tous les maux. Ainsi ses opinions en faveur du Gouvernement aristo-démo-monarchique ne doivent point favoriser les suggestions perfides des nos ennemis. Nous ne devons prendre dans cet Ouvrage que de nouvelles lumières pour fortifier notre amour pour le républicanisme; pour éviter les erreurs et les fautes des ancien Républicains; pour bien employer nos forces, sans en abuser; pour vaincre les difficulties que ne cessent de multiplier autour de nous les Despotes et les Mécontens, et

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

101

A selective Spanish translation of Gordon’s ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’ was made by Cristóbal Cladera (1760–1816), canon of the Cathedral of Palma de Mallorca and a notorious ‘afrancesado’,63 and published in Madrid in 1787 with the title Discurso histórico, crítico y político sobre los primeros ministros, los consejeros íntimos y los favoritos de los soberanos. A translation (from the French version) by Joaquín Lumbreras (1777–1844) of the first of the ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’ appeared in Madrid in 1840 with the title Discurso sobre los partidos y facciones. Although Lumbreras, a liberal academic, had translated the whole of Daudé’s version of Gordon while banned from the university during the década ominosa,64 his version of the Discurso sobre los ministros was not published in Madrid until 1843.65 Thomas Spence, radical and bookseller (1750–1814), and one of the very few British political writers to seriously advocate the ‘redistribution or equalisation of property’ in the 1790s, reproduced a number of odd extracts from Gordon’s ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, and Cato’s Letters, in his journal Pig’s Meat, or, Lessons for the Swinish Multitude (produced between 1793 and 1795 and later reprinted in three volumes), along with selections from writers such as Harrington, Philip Sydney, John Locke, Richard Price, Joseph Priestley, and William Godwin.66 4. In the Introduction to his translation of Sallust, first published in 1744, Gordon informed readers of a major new project, explaining that he had been working on it for a few years and that several more would elapse before half of it was ready for publication: pour mettre à l’ordre du jour les mœurs et la probité, qui peuvent perpétuer parmi nous l’ordre, l’abondance et la paix’ (Gordon, Discours historiques, critiques et politiques […] sur Tacite et sur Salluste, trans. by Daudé, i, pp. v–vi). 63  He was Francophile in the sense that he subscribed to currents of thought popular amongst the philosophes. 64  The ‘ominous decade’ was a term used by persecuted liberals to describe the last ten years of King Ferdinand VII’s reign. It ran from the abolition of the Spanish Constitution of 1812, on 1 October 1823, to his death on 29 September 1833. 65  See Rodríguez-San Pedro Bezares and Polo Rodríguez, Saberes y disciplinas en las universidades hispánicas, pp. 217–21. 66  See Philp, ‘English Republicanism in the 1790s’, p. 255; Parsinnen, ‘Thomas Spence’; and Dickinson, ‘Thomas Spence’. After Spence’s death his small group of followers, known as the Spencean Philanthropists, became embroiled in revolutionary activities such as the Cato Street conspiracy of 23 February 1820. Advocates of Spence’s land plan were active in the 1830s in both the National Union of the Working Classes and the Chartist movement.

Chapter III

102

Before I finish, I must inform my readers, that I have more service to offer them. I have been some years engaged in the History of England, and intend to pursue it. […] My first intention was to write the Life of Cromwell only: but as I found, that in order to describe his times, it was necessary to describe the times which preceded and introduced his, and that I could not begin even at the Reformation, without recounting many public incidents before the Reformation; I have begun at the Conquest, and gone through several Reigns, some of them seen and approved by the ablest judges; such judges as would animate the slowest ambition. Half of it will probably appear a few years hence: the whole will conclude with the History of Cromwell.67

The unfinished draft of Gordon’s History, now held in the British Library, runs to 459 folios, written on both sides of the paper. It is not a continuous record, dealing only with the following sovereigns: William the Norman (1066–87) William II. (1087–1100) Henry I. (1100–35) Stephen (1135–54) Henry II. (1154–89) Henry III. (1216–72) Edward II. (1307–27) Edward II. and Edward III. Edward III. (1327–77) James I. (1603–1625)

FOLIA

2–27 28–51 52–87 88–116 117–94 195–301 302–12 314–54 (duplicate)68

355–84 385–459

The manuscript, written out for the press by an amanuensis, and with corrections in the author’s handwriting, ends in mid-sentence with the year 1610.69 A short 67  Sallust, The Works, ed. and trans. by Gordon, p. xxi. In Smith, Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, ed. by Bryce (ii. 20), Adam Smith noted sarcastically that ‘by going on in the same way [Gordon] would have found himself reduced to the necessity of tracing the whole back even to the fall of Adam’. 68  My edition reproduces the second extant sources of Gordon’s chapters on Edward II and Edward III (fols 314–25 and 355–84), which, apart from sporadic lacunae, oversights and/or second thoughts, incorporate the marginal and intertextual corrections made to the antigraphs (fols 302–12, 326; 326–54) and add new ones. 69  J. G. A. Pocock has observantly noted, in correspondence with the writer, that Gordon’s History of England is ‘fascinating reading in its own right, because of both its contents and its lacunae. In some ways it is less a history — in spite of its regnal structure — than a series of discourses on history, like those Gordon wrote on Tacitus’.

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

103

passage in the chapter on Henry II (fol.  167 r) shows Gordon’s opinion of Cromwell, whose life he either did not live to write, or has been lost: ‘Cromwell, who acted so much like a great Prince, that it is a pity he had not been a just one’ (fol. 431r).70 Various clues in the narrative help to date the manuscript. A reference in the chapter on Henry III (fol. 301r) to the sixth Discourse introducing the second volume of the Works of Tacitus (1731) suggests that Gordon began writing the History in the midst of the five-year historiographic diatribe famously sparked by Bolingbroke’s Remarks upon the History of England, which first appeared in the weekly pages of the Craftsman between 5 September 1730 and 22 May 1731 (reviving seventeenth-century notions of an ancient constitution with free institutions since time immemorial). There are also a number of other indicators: the reference in the last chapter (fol. 394r) to the ‘recent’ repeal (in 1736) of the statutes against witchcraft introduced by James I and his mother; the citing of the 1740 edition of the Scaligerana; a letter written to the duke of Newcastle (1693–1768) around 1743,71 in which he states ‘I am going through an English Reign’; and the optimistic announcement made in 1744 and quoted above. All these clues show that the work was in continual gestation for over fifteen years, a period also marked by a resurgence of the Jacobite offensive. Small parts of the History appeared in Gordon’s Four Letters Taken from the General Evening Post, Relating to the Present Rebellion (pp. 8–16); in The Independent Whig (more specifically in its fourth volume, first published in 1747); in the 1748 Collection of Papers (no. 7, pp. 32–39); and in the Essays against Popery, Slavery and Arbitrary Power (pp. 135–43). As we have already observed, all these works contained essays written — and some published — during the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion. The parts concerned consist of extracts and adaptations of the first chapter of the History (namely: fols 4r, 6v, 7r, 8r, 11v, 13r, 14r), where he presents ‘the Reign or rather the Usurpation and Tyranny’ of William the Norman, ‘improperly call’d Conqueror’, as an example of the dangers posed by the ambitions of the Pretender (‘either old or young’). Gordon added a postscript to the published text in which he boldly claimed to be a scrupulous and even impartial historian: ‘In this character of William, called the Conqueror, I have taken the facts and circumstances, as I found them in History. So far am I from inventing either, to serve any purpose of my own. That he is not generally seen in so black a light, I conceive to be owing to the favourable account given 70  See also fol. 431r. For more about Gordon’s critical views of Cromwell, see Gordon, ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’, pp.  33, 79, 150. A chain of association from Caesar to Cromwell to Walpole had frequently been made in public political discourse. 71  BL, MS Addit. 32703, fol. 275. See also Bullock, ‘“Tacitus” Gordon’s Friends’.

104

Chapter III

of him by Sir William Temple, a performance unworthy of so able and candid a Writer’.72 This specification, and the polemical reference to the Introduction to the History of England (1695), are significant, because they reveal that Gordon was conscious of the persistent ideological connotations of contemporary accounts of medieval English history, though he too was unable to avoid them.73 5. J. G. A. Pocock has demonstrated the existence of two main orientations in seventeenth-century views of English history.74 The first, generally adopted by supporters of the House of Commons, depicted English institutions as the outcome of an uninterrupted process with profound roots in a distant past. Although debased and impoverished, the non-acquiescence of William I’s English subjects had prevented the Norman king and his successors from acquiring usurped rights by prescription. ‘If they were impatient under his Yoke, they had cause: They were a Free People and owned no Yoke but a voluntary Yoke’.75 The other, typically Tory, viewpoint regarded English government and jurisprudence as being chiefly the product of feudalism, considering the latter to have been introduced by the Normans. Speaking of James I, Gordon recalls: ‘It was his maxim, that the national liberty and the privileges of Parliament, were only concessions from the Kings his ancestors’.76 72 

Cf. Temple, An Introduction to the History of England, pp. 133, 144, 290–91, 301: ‘[It is not] evident whether the invidious name of Conqueror which [William] had so carefully avoided, were entailed upon him by the flattery of his friends or the malice of his enemies, among whom, the monkish writers seem to have been the chief and most inveterate. […] His fame will never die, but remain for ever in the most lasting records of time, and monuments of glory, among the princes most celebrated for their brave achievements in war, their wise institutions in peace, the length and prosperity of their lives and their reigns. In all which he must with justice be confessed not to have been equalled by many, if indeed by any we read in Story. […] He is agreed to have been a prince of great strength, wisdom, courage, clemency, magnificence, wit, courtesie, charity, temperance, and piety’. 73  See Kramnick, ‘Augustan Politics and English Historiography’. As Pocock has recently and effectively recalled, ‘the historiography of major early modern states was commonly one of bitter contestation, spilling over into civil war, over the relations between sovereign, church and law: in England, the ecclesia Anglicana and its alternatives, the ancient constitution and the feudal law; in France, the ecclesia Gallicana and its alternatives, the thèse nobiliaire and the thèse royale. The histories written were histories of this contestation and almost invariably arguments for one or other of the contested positions’ (Pocock, ‘Historiography as a Form of Political Thought’, at p. 4). 74  Pocock, The Ancient Constitution. 75  Gordon, History of England, fol. 19v. 76  Gordon, History of England, fol. 407v.

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

105

The figure who more than anyone else opposed the absolutist leanings of the Stuarts by claiming the existence of a Parliament — and even of Commons — prior to the Conquest was Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634).77 However, as Janelle Greenberg has pointed out, the ‘ancient constitutional narrative’, although it was only fully articulated for the first time by the great scholars and antiquarians of the Tudor and Stuart ages (Lambarde, Camden, Selden, Twysden) and was then bent to the service of the Rebellion and the execution of the king in the 1640s, can already be detected in the Middle Ages.78 Greenberg has pieced together the persuasive influence on this tradition of three sources that supposedly describe English laws and institutions before the Norman Conquest: the Modus tenendi Parliamentum, the Mirror of Justices, and, above all, the socalled Laws of St Edward.79 Although they were long considered to be from the Saxon age, in actual fact these three sources were produced between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries. The Modus’s proem strongly implied that ‘in certain circumstances parliament stood above the king and, moreover, that the House of Commons outranked the Lords’. In turn, the Mirror of Justices claimed that King Alfred had ‘ordained as a perpetual order’ that parliament should assemble twice a year. Above all, Chapter 17 of the Leges Edwardi Confessoris appealed 77  ‘By Coke’s time the increasing activity of a nearly sovereign monarchy had made it seem to most common lawyers that if a right was to be rooted in custom and rendered independent of the sovereign’s interference it must be shown to be immemorial in the full sense of “traceable to no original act of foundation”. The idea of the immemorial therefore took on an absolute colouring, which is one of the key facts in Stuart historico-political thought’ (Pocock, The Ancient Constitution, p. 37). 78  Greenberg, The Radical Face of the Ancient Constitution. See also Weston, ‘Diverse Viewpoints on Ancient Constitutionalism’. Glenn Burgess and John Guy have shown how the Henrician and Protestant reformers also turned to the Saxon past in an attempt to demonstrate the antiquity of English religious institutions in opposition to the claims of Rome. See Burgess, The Politics of the Ancient Constitution; Guy, Tudor England, Chapters 5–8. 79  While the Leges Edwardi Confessoris, which claimed to state the Confessor’s laws as they were collected by William I in 1070, were not definitively proved to be forgeries until the early twentieth century, the Modus and the Mirror were recognized as such in the seventeenth century. Many scholars, though, continued to treat them as genuine. See, for example, the ‘General Introduction’ to the first volume of Tyrrell, The General History of England, at p. lxxxvi. In Gordon, The True Crisis (1730), Gordon makes explicit reference to the Mirror of Justices, and the Laws of King Edgar, as proof that, before the Norman Conquest, ‘parliaments were to be held twice a year’ (p. 20). According to the fourteenth-century chronicler Henry Knighton, St Edward Laws were named after him ‘not because he had first found them but because he had found them neglected from the time of Edgar [who reigned from 957 to 975] who first took in hand the defining of them’. Quoted in Greenberg, The Radical Face of the Ancient Constitution, p. 55.

106

Chapter III

to seventeenth-century dissidents, stating that a king who failed in his duty to defend the kingdom, ‘the Lord’s people’, and the Church ‘loseth the very name of a king’.80 Simply stated, the myth of an ancient constitution — which in Gordon’s History is combined with the notion that conquerors ‘have ever been, ever must be Tyrants’ — rendered the Norman Conquest completely irrelevant to political theory.81 ‘The “Conqueror’s Magna Carta” was the first of a series which the kings of England has issued, freely or at the demand of an angry people, to confirm a law whose substance never changed’.82 The first dent in this widely accepted thesis of the antiquity of parliaments in England was made by Sir Henry Spelman (c.  1562–1641), who drew on impressive documentary evidence to sustain, in the ‘Parlamentum’ entry of the Glossarium Archaiologicum, that England’s social and institutional set-up was radically affected by the importing of Norman feudal law.83 The Parliament, far from being an ancient representative organ of the states of the kingdom, was, originally at least, nothing other than a council that the Norman king convened at his discretion and which was made up of his tenants in capite.84 The political implications of this new, and potentially devastating, version of history were slow to be grasped by the royalists. Indeed, Spelman’s works, though written in the 1620s, were not published until the 1660s and 70s (they were edited by Sir William Dugdale, who for his part held the view that the House 80 

Greenberg, The Radical Face of the Ancient Constitution, pp. 73, 77–80. See Gordon, History of England, fols 1–4. 82  Pocock, ‘Robert Brady, 1627–1700’, p.  190. See also Weston, ‘England: Ancient Constitution and Common Law’, p. 68, and Zook, ‘The Restoration Remembered’. 83  The first part of the Glossarium (A–L) was published in 1627 under the title Archaeologus. The full work, including the second part (M–Z), was published posthumously in 1664 as Spelman, Glossarium archaiologicum, ed. by Dugdale (1605–86). Edmund Gibson, in his Life of Sir Henry Spelman Kt., prefixed to his 1698 edition of Spelman’s posthumous works (Gibson, Reliquiae Spelmannianae), defended Spelman’s authorship of the ‘Parlamentum’ entry: ‘The share that Sir William Dugdale had, in the publication of this Second Part, has been made the ground of a suspicion, that he inserted many things of his own, that were not in Sir Henry Spelman’s copy; and particularly, some passages which tend to the enlargement of the Prerogative in opposition to the Liberties of the Subject. The objection has been rais’d on occasion of a controversie, about the antiquity of the Commons in Parliament; the Authority of Sir Henry being urg’d to prove that there was no such thing as a House of Commons till the time of Henry III. […] There can be no doubt, but his assertions under the title Parlamentum (upon which the controversie is rais’d) are his own, and not an interpolation of Sir William Dugdale’s. For the very copy from which it was printed, is in the Bodleian Library, in Sir Henry Spelman’s own hand; and agrees exactly with the printed book’. 84  Spelman, Glossarium archaiologicum, ed. by Dugdale, pp. 450–51. 81 

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

107

of Commons did not exist before the reign of Henry III). The notion of the continued existence, in the course of the Middle Ages, of the Saxon Witenagemot, with the representation of ‘commoners’, and an ancient constitution, therefore continued to persist until the ‘Exclusion crisis’ of 1679, when the Stuart loyalists finally resorted to feudal history as a political weapon against Whigs wishing to exclude James, Duke of York — a Catholic — from the throne. The ‘architect of this politicalization of Spelman’s feudalism’ was the physician Robert Brady, the royalist master of Caius College, Cambridge.85 Dugdale and Brady were quick to speak out against William Petyt’s defence of the constitutional nature of the Norman reign (published in 1680 as a response to the royalist writings of Filmer and Robert Holbourne86) and Edward Cooke’s peremptory negation of the Conquest expressed (also visually) in the Argumentum Anti-Normannicum (1682).87 Dugdale limited himself to stressing the brutality and arbitrariness of William I’s actions,88 while Brady accused Whig 85 

Kramnick, ‘Augustan Politics and English Historiography’, p. 36. See also Pocock, ‘Robert Brady, 1627–1700’; Okie, Augustan Historical Writing, pp. 47–73; Hicks, Neoclassical History and English Culture, pp.  82–109; Rose, ‘Robert Brady’s Intellectual History and Royalist Antipopery in Restoration England’. As Mark Knights has recently observed, ‘the Tory interpretation was, like its Whig counterpart, a present-centered view of the past, offering judgmental, partial, and distorted history. The Tory historian was every bit as much an “avenger” as his or her Whig rival, transferring into a view of the past the enthusiasms, fervor, and antipathies of the present to replace rather than to accommodate alternative explanations. […] Partisan history bordered both polemic and fiction’ (Knights, ‘The Tory Interpretation of History’). 86  Petyt, The Ancient Right of the Commons of England: ‘In the Brittish, Saxon, and Norman Governments, the Commons (as we now phrase them,) had votes, and a share in the making and enacting of Laws for the Government of the Kingdom, […] they were an essential part of the Commune Concilium Regni, Wittena Gemot, or Parliament, before and after the supposed Conquest by King William the First’ (‘The Preface’: pp. 73–74). Significantly, Tacitus’s Germania was the authority for the fact that the Commons formed part of the Saxons’ Witenagemots. According to James Tyrrell, ‘[the word Wittena-Gemot] is derived from the Saxon word Wites, or Witen, i.e., Sapientes, or Wise-Men; and tho Dr. Brady […] will have this word mostly to signify Noblemen, or Great Lawyers, yet I do not find he brings any good Authority for his so doing’ (Tyrrell, The General History of England, i, p. lxxxviii). 87  In the foreground of the frontispiece is a representation of William being crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, while Britannia hands him the sceptre and St Edward’s Laws, and the Bishop of York the Coronation Oath. In the background is the aftermath of the Battle of Hastings, with Harold lying dead on the ground between the two armies. The author explains: ‘A Nobel Prelate, tenders him the Coronation Oath: the English first being asked, by the Bishop, If they would assent to have the Duke their King? And if he should then be crowned? To which they all, with an unanimous consent, answered, Yea, Yea; Whereupon he takes the Coronation Oath’. 88  Dugdale’s reply remained in manuscript form (and is now held in the Bodleian Library).

108

Chapter III

historiography of having misunderstood the medieval use of terms such as populus, communitas regni, and libere tenentes, all of which were to be related instead to a feudal language and context. In his view, the feudal kingdom established after the Norman conquest had long precluded a shared law-making power, and the Commons of England did not constitute an estate in Parliament before the fortyninth year of Henry III.89 Two books published by a pupil of Petyt, the lawyer William Atwood (The Lord Holles His Remains and Jus Anglorum ab antiquo), and ‘many others of same batch, all written and tim’d’, according to Brady, ‘with design to promote sedition, and the destruction of the Established Government’, were followed by Brady’s Introduction to the Old History of England (1684) and the first volume (1685) of his Complete History of England. These works depict medieval English society as patriarchal, ‘in which the king had given his people land on condition of service to himself ’.90 Moreover, despite the royal charters, the law-making power had passed ‘unshared and undivided’ to the successors of the Conqueror.91 Parliament, then, was submitted to the Crown and not permitted to change the rules of succession. 6. Following up an issue raised by Pocock in passing,92 Isaac Kramnick explored another important controversy in which English medieval history still proved to be a useful ideological weapon in the early eighteenth century. The dispute was between Tory members of the lower house of Convocation, led by Francis ­Atterbury, and four eminent representatives of the Low-Church episcopate, which had found favour with William III and Anne — William Wake, White Kennet, William Nicolson, and Edmund Gibson, all schooled in medieval anti­ quities and the new feudal history at Queen’s College, Oxford. In his Letter to a Convocation Man (1697), and then in Rights, Powers and Priviledges of an English Convocation (1700), Atterbury had disputed the idea that the power to assemble See Pocock, ‘Robert Brady, 1627–1700’, pp. 193–94. 89  Weston, ‘England: Ancient Constitution and Common Law’, pp. 406–09. 90  Pocock, ‘Robert Brady, 1627–1700’, p. 199. ‘All the Liberties and Priviledges the People can pretend to, were the Grants and the Concessions of the Kings of this Nation, and were derived from the Crown. […] For here never was Pact between King and People, nor Fundamental Terms of Government agreed between them; […] Charters were […] but a relaxation of the rigor of the Feudal Law generally used in Europe’ (Brady, A Complete History of England, ‘To the Reader’; ‘The General Preface’, p. xliii; ‘The Preface to the Norman History’, p. 184). 91  See Weston, ‘Legal Sovereignty in the Brady Controversy’. 92  See Pocock, ‘Machiavelli, Harrington, and English Political Ideologies’ (in William and Mary Quarterly), pp. 578–79.

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

109

Convocation depended exclusively on the king’s will, and also claimed for the lower house of Convocation the same dignity and independence as the upper house. To support his thesis, he drew on an analogy between the Convocation and the Parliament: ‘The members of Parliament, which now make Two Houses, sat together originally, and so did those of Convocation’.93 Presbyters had, then, from the beginning, ‘an equality of place and authority of voice with their bishops in the councils of the church’. The Norman Conquest had not changed this ancient ecclesiastical constitution. The members of the Latitudinarian episcopate rejected the arguments of the Tory Atterbury and his ‘Whig history’, adopting the language of Spelman and Brady: it was not until the forty-ninth year of the reign of Henry III, they sustained, that ‘commoners and the lower clergy’ were called to Parliament.94 The involvement of the future bishop of London, Edmund Gibson (‘Walpole’s Pope’ and a target of Gordon’s criticism and satire), in this dispute was most probably renewed in the 1730s, when similar arguments were used by the government press in response to the historiographic offensive launched by the Craftsman, Bolingbroke’s weekly paper. In his Remarks on the History of England, Bolingbroke set out to unmask the contradictions and negative authoritarian trend of the Walpole administration, to revive the spirit of liberty, and to re-establish what he believed to be the authentic and original concepts of the British constitution. In the Saxon constitution, he wrote, ‘supreme power centered in the micklemote or wittagenmote, composed of the king, the lords, and the Saxon freemen, that original sketch of a British Parliament’.95 This system was not disbanded with the arrival of William and his sons, and the Magna Carta represented a victory for the continuity of Saxon liberties. Furthermore, according to Bolingbroke, liberty flourished under certain sovereigns, in particular Edward III, Henry V, 93 

Atterbury, The Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation, p. 49. Kramnick, ‘Augustan Politics and English Historiography’, p.  48. For more about Atterbury, see Bennett, The Tory Crisis. 95  Bolingbroke, Remarks on the History of England, p. 52. Quite significantly, in his Histoire de Charles XII (1731), Voltaire, ‘at the feet of Bolingbroke in the 1720s’, suggested that the English were less free and noble in his time than in the past. It is very interesting, though, that in Homme aux quarante écus (1768), Reason (depicted as an itinerant, together with his intimate friends Experience and Tolerance, Agriculture and Trade, on a map of Europe ‘unequally open to the progress of the human spirit’) reminds two astonished old Bavarian fogeys how ‘it is a long ago that [she has] been naturalized by Act of Parliament in England, through the labors of Locke, Gordon, Trenchard, Lord Shaftesbury, and a number of others of the same nation’ (quoted in Enlightenment Portraits, ed. by Vovelle, p. 163). I am grateful to Dr Ulrich Lehner for drawing my attention to this passage. 94 

110

Chapter III

and Elizabeth. On the other hand, Henry VIII turned from being a champion of liberty into one of the worst of all English kings (in company with Richard II, Henry VI, and VII, and, of course, James I and Charles I). This was due to the influence of his corrupt minister, Wolsey, a common coded name for Walpole in anti-government journalism, along with those of other similarly grasping ministers down the ages, such as Sejanus, Clodius, Gaveston, and Buckingham. The Government press, apparently following instructions from Gibson, objected that the people of England had never been free before the Glorious Revolution. The Witenagemot did not include freeholders and the common people were nothing other than a crowd of ‘rude, scarse humanized fighting beggars’. Therefore, ‘to bring the government of England back to its first principles, is to bring the people back to absolute slavery; the primitive purity of our constitution was that the people had no share in the government, but were the villains, vassals, bondmen of the Lords; a sort of cattle bought and sold with the land’.96 While the government press acknowledged its debt to the historical work of Brady — though dissociating itself from his political convictions — for his part Bolingbroke repeatedly cited Rapin-Thoyras, the Huguenot historian with Whig sympathies who was one of the main sources of Gordon’s History of England. 7. In Gordon’s History, references to sources, although significant, are very sporadic, vague, and generally intertextual. Generally speaking, what has been said about one of his possible sources, Sir William Temple (1628–99), might equally well be applied to Gordon himself: ‘Of historical research — in the sense that the philologists and antiquaries understood it — [he] knew nothing and cared less’.97 The analogies between Gordon and Temple, both committed Sinophiles and covert admirers of Dutch republicanism,98 do not end here, despite their different views on William the Norman (who, in Temple, prefigures the ‘conquest’ of another King William, to whom he was favourably disposed). Temple had been the eminent and elderly protagonist of a dispute with the young classicist William Wotton about the use of the past and about whether or not the ancients 96 

London Journal, 23 March 1734 and 1 September 1733 (quoted in Kramnick, ‘Augustan Politics and English Historiography’). See also Goldie, ‘The English System of Liberty’, pp. 71, 75–78. 97  Levine, Humanism and History, p.  167. See also Woodbridge, Sir William Temple, pp. 254–61. 98  On Temple’s Sinophilia and his praise for the ‘radical Dutch republican paradigm’, see Israel, ‘The Intellectual Origins of Modern Democratic Republicanism’, and the above-quoted Israel, ‘Admiration of China and Classical Thought’.

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

111

were superior to the moderns. Wotton had argued that the advent of printing, together with the greater sophistication of philological, chronological, and geographic skills, gave a modern historian tackling the same subject as an ancient one greater subtlety and critical awareness.99 Temple regarded all this as mere pedantry: the ancient historians, he claimed, excelled by virtue of their choice of a ‘noble and great subject’, their ability to combine instruction and entertainment in their work and to reflect, in it, their eloquence and their political experience: ‘Example or instruction to posterity […] are the great ends of History, and ought to be the chief care of all historians’.100 In 1694, Temple suggested remedying the absence of a single narrative history of England composed along classical lines, proposing a kind of assemblage of existing texts by different authors. His Introduction to the History of England itself would have been prefixed to this work, which, however, was only realized after Temple’s death by John Hughes, who was chosen to succeed him as editor. The Introduction (which surveys English history from the earliest times to 1066) paraphrased in various points the historical work of Samuel Daniel, ‘the distant progenitor of English constitutional history’,101 without, however, ever acknowledging it. Temple’s task was thus ‘to choose the best narrative and to recast it with the help of other convenient works, adding his own gifts of style, organization, and political insight’.102 99  A second, 1697, edition of Wotton’s Reflections upon Ancient and Modern Learning had famously included Richard Bentley’s Dissertation on Phalaris, in which the severe philologist advanced sixteen unanswerable arguments proving — against Temple — that the letters could not have been written by their purported author. Jonathan Swift satirized Wotton in The Tale of a Tub and The Battle of the Books. This initiated a third edition of Wotton’s Reflections in 1705, containing his ‘Observations upon The Tale of a Tub’. In 1710 Edmund Curll published A Complete Key to ‘The Tale of a Tub’, including ‘An examination of Mr Wotton’s Observations’. In his ‘Introduction’ to Sallust’s Works, Gordon rather hesitantly challenges the host of Bentley’s denigrators by saying : ‘Had it not been for his rough Behaviour, his apparent Scorn and Contempt for all Men, particularly for those who differed from him, he would have been the most formidable Critic of his Time. His Self-sufficiency and coarse Manners sunk him, and disgraced a very extraordinary Character. […] Those who conquered him in Politeness, had the Applause; whilst he who conquered them in Argument, had none. […] His Name is vulgarly become a Name of Derision and Mirth, instead of Praise and Esteem. […] A Stern dictating Pedant, whatever Learning he may have, has no Friends’ (pp. xix–xx). 100  Temple, An Introduction to the History of England, p. 294. See Levine, Humanism and History, Chapter 6, pp. 155–77, where this quarrel about history is reconstructed with great authority. See also Kirk, Sir William Temple: A Seventeenth-Century ‘Libertin’, Chapter 2. 101  Woolf, The Idea of History, p. 104. 102  Levine, Humanism and History, p. 167.

112

Chapter III

It is also significant that in the second part of The Conspirators, or, The Case of Catiline (1721), Gordon reformulated the apologue of the bee without ever citing Jonathan Swift, Temple’s secretary and the author of the The Battle of the Books (and, ironically, also of a biting parody of Collins’s pamphlet in defence of freethinking): He, that writes upon the History of the Ancients, can, perhaps, be look’d upon as no more than a collector of other men’s works; and therefore can expect but little reputation from the nature of his performance: but then there is a judgment requisite to distinguish the profitable from the useless, and giving such examples as may instruct as well as delight the readers: and here the Author puts in his claim and applause. An ingenious historian must imitate the industry of the bee, who, ranging about for food, sucks his honey from the choicest flowers of the garden, without meddling with weeds or rubbish: and thus he come home laden with all the sweetness of the season, and discharges his little burthen for the common use of his fellow-citizens of the hive. A curious historian, in the like manner, by collecting the flowers of all Authors that have wrote before him, and by disposing them into method and order, may form a piece more grateful and useful to mankind, than reading the prolix passages, from which they are drawn, at length in their originals could possibly be (pp. 1–2).

Like Bolingbroke, Gordon was impatient with antiquarian erudition. His ‘neoclassical’ historical narrative is dotted with semi-fictional speeches for his historical characters, gratifying the consolidated expectation that history should not be separated from rhetoric.103 Based on the representation of the personality and conduct of each sovereign, and on the interference of the ecclesiastical authorities, it still focuses mainly on strictly political themes, and gives only marginal consideration to the state of the economy and the development of new social groups. The purpose of the historian was still to arrive at conclusions in a compelling narrative without acquainting the reader with the supporting material. There is no trace of the erudite work of antiquaries such as Thomas Hearne, Thomas Rymer, Thomas Madox, or Humphrey Wanley, who pioneered 103 

See Hicks, Neoclassical History and English Culture, pp. 58–59, 230–31; Ginzburg, Threads and Traces, Chapter 1. According to Jean Le Clerc (1657–1736), the distinguished author of a ponderous introduction to philology and history (Le Clerc, Ars critica, 1697), the inclusion of speeches in historical narrative violated ‘the historian’s primary responsibility to tell the truth’ (Grafton, What Was History?, p. 10). Clearly, Gordon was unaware of Le Clerc’s warnings. A contemporary reappraisal of the function of invented speeches in works of historical narrative can be found in Smith, Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, ed. by Bryce , IV (1983), p. 103. On Jean Le Clerc, see also Rotondò, ‘“Periculum criticum”’.

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

113

the accurate diplomatic editing of medieval sources according to principles established by Jean Mabillon. Nor can it be said that there was any lack of scholarly works on the early history of England, for example, the Thesaurus of the Northern Tongues (1705) by George Hickes, the new edition of Britannia by Camden, expanded and translated under the supervision of Gibson (1695 and 1722), or the Archaeologica Britannica of Edward Lhwyd (1707). The few authors cited by Gordon include William of Malmesbury and Ingulf, the abbot of Crowland;104 Henry of Huntingdon;105 the thirteenth-century chronicler Matthew Paris, whose unconcealed loathing for the papacy undoubtedly appealed to Gordon;106 Arthur Wilson, author of an anti-Stuart history of James I;107 Gilbert Burnet (with regard to the persecution of the Waldensians);108 Pierre Joseph d’Orléans, S.I., ‘a warm Advocate for the Family of the Stuarts’;109 and James Tyrrell (more specifically the second volume of his unfinished General History of England110). Finally, and rather singularly, there was Joseph Justus 104  ‘The very Monks, who rarely make or know any other difference between good and evil but as it affects their own narrow Interests, and therefore often extoll the worst men, often curse and revile the best, could not dissemble his [William I’s] vehement Enmity to the English and the lawless outrages of his Administration’ (Gordon, History of England, fols 23v–24r). 105  Gordon, History of England, fol. 82r. 106  Gordon, History of England, fols 63r, 248–49. It was Matthew Parker (1504–75), the archbishop of Canterbury, who oversaw the printing, between 1567 and 1574, of a series of important medieval historical texts, including Paris’s Chronica majora (first printed in 1571). 107  Gordon, History of England, fols 389r-v, 425r. Wilson said of James I that he ‘was a King in understanding, and was content to have his Subjects ignorant in many things. […] It was a hard question, whether his wisdom, and knowledge, exceeded his choler, and fear; certainly the last couple drew him with most violence, because they were not acquisitions, but natural’ (Wilson, The History of Great Britain, Being the Life and Reign of King James the First, p. 289). 108  Gordon, History of England, fol. 154v. 109  Gordon, History of England, fol. 393v. 110  Gordon, History of England, fol. 146r. In the ‘Epistle Dedicatory’ (to Thomas, Earl of Pembroke) of the first volume of his General History of England, Tyrrell elucidates his view on the ancient English constitution, which is consonant with Gordon’s narrative: ‘As for the invasions by the Danes under King Cnute, and by the Normans under King William, commonly called the Conqueror; though it must be granted, that these Princes were victorious by their arms, yet was not this Nation subdued by either of them so entirely, as that its Submissions could properly be stiled Conquests, but rather Acquisitions gained by those Princes upon certain Compacts between them and the People of England; both Parties standing obliged in solemn Oaths, mutually to perform their parts of the Agreement’ (p. iii). The appendix to the second volume of Tyrrell’s General History contains transcripts of such Charters granted by ‘our English Kings of the Norman Race’ as they ‘relate to the antient Privileges and Liberties of the Clergy

114

Chapter III

S­ caliger, from whom Gordon gleaned that James I had ordered, for his coronation, the minting and distribution of coins bearing his effigy and the motto Caesar Caesarum — ‘a motto so vain and unnatural, and the cause of such mirth, that he had them called in and melted down’.111 Unsurprisingly, there is no reference to the History of England by Laurence Echard, published between 1707 and 1718. Conceived in the ideological and political climate of the reign of Queen Anne, Echard’s work contained an overly positive representation of the Norman Conquest (seen as an element of political stabilization after the institutional and moral decadence of the late Anglo-Saxon age), an exculpatory reading of the reigns of James I and Charles I (guilty, at the most, of a lack of political intelligence), and an excess of providentialism.112 8. Besides some appreciative comments about George Buchanan’s De iure regni apud Scotos (with his ‘fine theory of government, with all the proper boundaries of power in a sovereign, and rights in the people’113), Gordon referred repeatedly and People of England’. Finally, the second part of the third volume presents an appendix, ‘being a brief and impartial disquisition into that great question, Whether the Commons of England had ever any other Representatives in Parliament, than the Tenants in Capite, before the 49th of Henry the Third?’ This is clearly an unequivocal rejection of Brady’s and Spelman’s arguments. 111  Gordon, History of England, fol. 390v. Cf. Scaligerana, Thuana, Perroniana, Pithoeana, et Colomesiana, ed. by Des Maizeaux, ii, 385. Two more possible sources are Nathaniel Bacon’s Discourse on the Laws and Government of England (first printed in 1649 and reputedly collected from some manuscript notes of John Selden) and Osborne, Historical Memoires on the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James. See Gordon, ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’, pp. 26, 58, 107. 112  See Minuti, ‘Il problema costituzionale nell’Histoire d’Angleterre’, pp. 50–52; Hicks, Neoclassical History and English Culture, p. 107. Echard’s study had been systematically confuted in the Critical History of England, Ecclesiastical and Civil (1724) by John Oldmixon, whose rigorous Whig observance was reflected in the lists of authorities that rounds off each section. Predictably, these lists include the likes of Milton, Temple, and Tyrrell. 113  Gordon, History of England, fol. 395v. George Buchanan held that the only legitimate form of government was ‘government by consent’. Indeed, James I’s belief in his divine right to rule was developed ‘partly as a response to his former tutor’s radical politics’ (See Buchanan, De iure regni apud Scotos Dialogus, ed. by Mason and Smith, ‘Introduction’, pp. lxx–lxxi). On 21 July 1683, in the aftermath of the so-called Rye House Plot to assassinate King Charles II and his brother the Duke of York, Buchanan’s De iure regni apud Scotos (1579, reprinted in 1680) was burned along with thirty-one books categorized under twenty-seven ‘impious, seditious, rebellious and atheistical principles’ by the Convocation of the Oxford University. See Rose, ‘Robert Brady’s Intellectual History and Royalist Antipopery in Restoration England’. According to Gordon, the ‘Oxford Decree’ was ‘a Doom pronounced by that University

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

115

in his History to the work of Rapin, reputedly the most widely read general historian of England in the first half of the eighteenth century.114 Rapin’s Histoire d’Angleterre had been conceived for a foreign readership, the author’s aim being to provide clear, well-documented general ideas about the nature and development of a government that was unique amongst European countries. It was in England, though, and subsequently in American revolutionary culture, that the Histoire d’Angleterre had greatest success.115 The English translation (1725–31), accompanied by illustrations, was by Nicholas Tindal (1687–1774), nephew of the more celebrated Matthew Tindal, who studded Rapin’s text with dense notes drawn from the Historical Essay of the Legislative Power by George St Amand (1725). Tindal also wrote a Continuation of the Histoire (1744–45), covering the years from the accession of James I to that of George I.116 against the Constitution, surrendering, or rather sentencing Law to Will’ (Gordon, A Letter of Consolation and Counsel, p. 17). 114  Born in Castres to a French Huguenot family with a strong legal background, after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, Paul de Rapin-Thoyras (1661–1725) moved first to London and then to Utrecht. Here, together with other French refugees, he attached himself to the army of William of Orange, which landed in England in 1688. After working for several years as a tutor, in 1707 Rapin settled permanently in Wesel. He came to the attention of the educated European readership for the publication, in the Bibliothèque choisie and in Le Clerc’s Bibliothèque ancienne et moderne, of Extraits from Thomas Rymer’s Foedera, and above all for his successful Dissertation sur l’origine du gouvernement d’Angleterre et sur la naissance […] des deux partis des Whigs et des Torys (1717). The Histoire d’Angleterre, written in Wesel and published for the first time in The Hague in ten quarto volumes between 1723 and 1725, began with the invasion of Julius Caesar and ended with William and Mary’s accession to the throne. This was followed, in 1734 and 1736, by the French continuations of Rapin’s study, carried out by David Durand with regard to the reign of William III, and then, for the period through to the reign of George II, by a certain Dupard. See Minuti, ‘Il problema costituzionale nell’Histoire d’Angleterre’; Trevor-Roper, ‘Our First Whig Historian’. Significantly, the Amsterdam proofreader Charles de la Motte (c. 1667–1751) had asked Pierre Des Maizeaux for help in obtaining a bibliography of historical works (covering the period from Cromwell to James II) from Anthony Collins, to be used for Rapin’s Histoire. See Collins, The Correspondence, ed. by Dybikowski, p. 39. 115  As it was written by a foreigner in the Dutch Republic, Rapin’s work was largely greeted as an impartial historical account and remained the standard History of England until at least the mid-eighteenth century. See Okie, Augustan Historical Writing, pp. 47–73; Hicks, Neoclassical History and English Culture, pp. 143–69. 116  Sullivan, ‘Rapin, Hume and the Identity of the Historian’ mentions another English edition designed for use in schools, translated by John Lockman and published in 1729. Rapin’s text was presented here in a question and answer form. ‘Lockman’s history coerced children into answering questions such as “Whence [is the Parliament] derived” with the answer “From the assemblies of the Northern nations, whence the Anglo-Saxons came”’ (p. 150). Sullivan

116

Chapter III

Rapin, whose work was based on the rigorous use of collections of sources, identified the introduction of Germanic institutions following the AngloSaxon invasion and settlement of England as a precise starting point in English constitutional history. The central element was the absence of any absolute form of legal authority amongst the Germanic populations and the fact that the assembly structure was also maintained by the Anglo-Saxon conquerors of England, despite the establishment of the regal title after Hengist. Hence the composite nature of Anglo-Saxon government — in part monarchic, in part aristocratic (an element guaranteed by the Witenagemot, the assembly of the wise).117 Rapin also claimed — unlike Spelman or Brady — that feudal restrictions had been in place prior to the Norman Conquest. While the nature of the ‘voluntary society’ that distinguished the Saxon invaders (a cluster of armies that followed an elected warlord solely for the duration of the undertaking) had initially envisaged collective ownership of the conquered lands and the right of each of them to a share (in so far as they detained a dominium utile), over time this right had become subject to the performing of military service. According to Rapin, though, uncertainty remained about issues relating to the law of succession in the Anglo-Saxon age (hereditary, elective, or testamentary), the authenticity of the charters attributed to the Anglo-Saxon sovereigns, and the democratic component in the Anglo-Saxon government structure, in other words the presence in the assembly of members of the minor nobility and representatives of towns and villages. Tindal’s extensive notes are thus of crucial also mentions a request made by David Hume, who was convinced of his own impartiality, to the Abbé Le Blanc in 1757; he asked Le Blanc, who was keeping a watchful eye on the French translation of his History of Great Britain under the House of Stuart (published in two volumes in 1754), to ensure that the phrase ‘Rapin, the most judicious of our historians’ be replaced by ‘Rapin, suitable to his usual partiality and malignity’ (p. 146). Hume completed the volumes dealing with the previous ages in 1759 and 1761/2. From 1762 onwards they were sold together as a chronological history from Julius Caesar to 1688. For a recent and very informative analysis of the circumstances and process of ‘the inception, composition, reception and revision’ of Hume’s History of England, see Baumstark, ‘David Hume’. 117  On the importance of Tacitus’s Germania in providing Britain with ‘a non-Roman and anti-Gallic source of constitutional history’, see Weinbrot, ‘Some Uses of Tacitism in EighteenthCentury Britain’, pp.  178–84; Benario, ‘Gordon’s Tacitus’, p.  111; Pocock, The Ancient Constitution, p. 56. Weinbrot recalls how Montesquieu [Esprit des Lois, xi. 6] also maintained that Tacitus’s Germania demonstrates ‘that it is from them [the Germans] the English have borrowed the idea of their political government. This beautiful system was invented first in the woods’. See also Battista, ‘La Germania di Tacito’. For more about how Tacitus, ‘the enemy to tyrants’, became the author of ‘a Bible for National Socialism’ in twentieth-century Germany, see Krebs, A Most Dangerous Book: Tacitus’s ‘Germania’.

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

117

importance for understanding the ideological use to which Rapin’s work was put in the English historiographic debate. This is because St Amand, whom Tindal drew on copiously, stated confidently, despite the acknowledged difficulty of ascertaining the nature of Anglo-Saxon institutions with any great precision, that the general assembly of the kingdom also included representatives of settlements unrestricted by feudal ties. This constituted the origin of the representation of the Commons in Parliament.118 There are two significant elements that Gordon appears to have derived from Rapin. One is the emphasis placed on the idea that the restoration of the laws of Edward the Confessor was largely the result of efforts to defend powers and privileges made by the new forces (‘who before holding their lands at the meer will of the donor, were likewise exposed to be stripped of them at his will’119) that emerged after the Conquest. It was in order to offset this constant vulnerability that they embraced the principles of the ‘génie anglais tout porté à la liberté’.120 The second is the representation of James I as the person who bore the greatest responsibility for the chain of events leading to the Civil War.121 9. The first chapter of Gordon’s History is entitled ‘Of William the Norman, His Conquest and Conduct, and of Conquerors in General’. It opens with an eloquent introduction about how the power of William — whose ‘only Title to the Crown was what he gained after his Victory and what the People gave him, upon the usual restrictions, and an Oath taken to preserve their Laws and Liberties’ — was legitimated by the people. This is followed by a concise reflection on the 118 

See Minuti, ‘Il problema costituzionale nell’Histoire d’Angleterre’, pp. 65–71. Gordon, History of England, fol. 55v. 120  Rapin-Thoyras, Histoire d’Angleterre, i, 245. 121  Gordon, History of England, fols 397v–398r, 405r, 412r. Cf. Rapin: ‘James the First’s notion of the English Constitution was very different from what had been hitherto current. […] He was persuaded, the privileges of the Nation and Parliament were so many usurpations, or at best, but revocable concessions of the Crown, and gave frequent occasions to believe, he had formed a design to free both himself and successors from the restraint which the laws, customs, and privileges of the English Nation had laid on his predecessors. However this be, from one end of his Reign to the other, he embraced all opportunities to improve his Prerogative-Royal, to which he set no bounds but his will. […] Some [historians] extol him for maintaining the Prerogative Royal in its full lustre, in spite of those who were continually attacking it. Others pretend, he had conceived very wrong ideas of the English Constitution, and by aiming to carry the regal authority too high, and instilling the same principles into his successor, he was the first cause of his Family’s ruin’ (Rapin-Thoyras, The History of England, trans. by Tindal, ii, 163, 235–36). 119 

118

Chapter III

vulnerability, and unproductiveness,122 of power founded on conquest, given the constant and oppressive presence of ‘mutual distrust between the Conqueror and the conquered’.123 Conquest is degrading first and foremost for those who pursue it, in that it involves being ruthless with the innocent and helpless, and requires trickery and deceit. As all conquerors are likely to be hated, no conqueror can think himself safe. He will therefore try all expedients, and grasp at all power to make himself safe, yet, after all his best skill and efforts, will often find himself in danger. […] Even when superiour force and fortune, as those of William the Norman, have brought the bodies of men, and perhaps their lips to acquiesce, their spirits will remain ulcerated, sullen and revengeful, or be thought so, and fresh cautions with severe measures will be taken, as if they were so, and will therefore make them so. […] Thus in time, nay in short time, the conquered may cease to be a People, but lose their name and being with their Country and their lives […] or, which is a worse evil, they are likely to possess their name and their lives in slavery and scorn. What stronger consideration can be presented to the heart of men to animate them to love their Country, and defend it to their last breath.124

To satisfy the avid adventurers who had followed him on his campaign of conquest, William ‘at once seized into his own hands all baronies and fiefs of the Crown whatsoever, and reduced all the nobility and land-holders in England to a state of nakedness and want of bread. Their estates thus barbarously taken from them he profusely granted to his kindred, favourites and followers, all forreigners’. William then ruthlessly deprived the local clergy of their freeholds, ‘a measure which, had it been legal, would have been reasonable, as any use of their revenues was better than the common use’. Not that he had anything against the clergy as such, for ‘like many other men falsly devout, as well as detestably wicked and bloody’, he was ‘a bigot’. William hated the English clergy ‘because they were Englishmen’. If he had not considered them unreliable and if, for instance, he had ‘gratified the monks with part of the spoil, they would have hallowed his right 122 

‘By the maxims of a Conqueror he is obliged never to suffer the conquered to recover strength, nor riches; since though he affect to encourage wealth, as it will be all or chiefly intended for himself under divers names and pretences, taxes, contributions, aids, loans, and public safety, there will ever be wanting that natural and voluntary industry which is so absolutely necessary to produce wealth. […] Oppressive princes are enemies to their own interest; since the strength and true riches of a prince, as well as his true glory, are to be found in the wealth and happiness of his people’ (Gordon, History of England, fols 25v, 31r). 123  Gordon, History of England, fol. 2r. 124  Gordon, History of England, fols 3–5.

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

119

to all the rest, and defended his most unhallowed doings. No tyrant that had courted the clergy, was ever reckoned a tyrant in their books: many such have been sainted there’.125 Ferocious and insatiable,126 William had no qualms about destroying houses and churches in Hampshire in order to secure extensive hunting grounds for himself, ‘without any retribution or amends to the miserable proprietors’.127 When threatened by a ‘numerous army’ of conspirators, William once again, ‘to gain their belief and confidence’, renewed his oath ‘to be damned if he broke his word, or ruled otherwise, for the future, than according to the ancient known Laws of England’. But as soon as ‘the Leaders broke their Army, [he broke] his oath’.128 William’s mendacious oath justifies the harsh judgement of the Norman dominion in Gordon’s narrative, but most importantly also lends weight to the thesis of the preexistence of English liberties: For such a course of fraud and barbarity to his Subjects, [William] is never to be excused, less justified. If they were impatient under his yoke, they had cause: They were a Free People and owned no yoke but a voluntary yoke. […] How could he demand or even expect obedience from them, when they found no faith, no protection from him? […] and they never revolted but after notorious violation of his Oath and of all their privileges. […] He had no claim to their Country but that of violence, nor to their allegiance but that of consent, which he had gained on terms of legal protection for legal obedience. […] All Nations and all men have a natural Right to resist an Invader, an Invader of their Liberty and Property as well as an Invader of the Soil, as Liberty and Property are more interesting than the Soil. William the Norman was both, and they had a double, indeed every motive to resist him. It was but self preservation.129 125 

Gordon, History of England, fols 7–10. Gordon describes the great survey of England, completed in 1086, as follows: ‘After long wading in blood, he set himself to accumulate money. He erected a Commission for surveying the Kingdom and for appraising the substance of every man in it; not only his land, but his corn, cattle and everything else of any the least value. All these were registered and all men exorbitantly taxed for each’ (fol. 14r). 127  Gordon, History of England, fol. 14v. This piece of information was probably taken from William of Malmesbury. Further on in the text, Gordon expresses a biased view of the historic work of some of the medieval chroniclers, including William of Malmesbury and the abbot of Crowland, ‘authors who have hardly ever failed to represent things according to the tenor and measure of their own bigotry, and men according to that of their bounty or contempt towards monks and monastries’ (fol. 23r). 128  Gordon, History of England, fol. 11r. 129  Gordon, History of England, fols 19v–20r. There is a discernible amalgamation here of two traditions of anti-court theorizing — one from history and law, and the other from natural 126 

120

Chapter III

As regards the second Norman king, William Rufus, ‘who had all his father’s fierceness and brutality; with less art and circumspection’, Gordon writes that, ignoring the sage advice of Lanfranc, the archbishop of Canterbury, ‘he thought, as he made plain by his words as well as actions, that no conditions, no promises ought to bind a king, even such promises and conditions as procure him a crown, and without which he could not have procured his’.130 The demands and conduct of Lanfranc’s successor, Anselm (‘who professed to defy all laws that meddled with things ecclesiastical, which in the clerical stile, generally mean things universal’), the conflict between Urban II and Clement III (‘each asserting his own infallibility and divine vicarship’), and the Crusades against the infidels in Palestine and against heretics at home (‘that is, against all rational, all scriptural Christians’) provided Gordon with a further opportunity to warn, in terms reminiscent of Hoadly and Tindal, of the dangers of ecclesiastical meddling in civil and political life: Two supreme governments in the same society, are two monsters, which must destroy one another, or be both destroyed. […] No prince can be called sovereign, who allows the church, any head but himself. […] There can therefore be no spiritual power, but what is exercised by the hand of God. […] Our blessed Saviour neither shewed nor claimed any power but that of miracles. […] No government can subsist under partial or divided obedience, which will always be strongest on the side where the terror is greatest, as ghostly terror always is.131

Gordon’s judgement of Henry I is also harsh. Although Henry had solemnly undertaken, with his ‘Charter of the Liberties of England’, to restore ‘the ancient Saxon Laws and Immunities, re-establishing the old Constitution, with the popular Laws of Edward the Confessor, and renouncing all the usurped claims and prerogatives of the two last reigns’,132 Gordon takes issue with him for his contemptible behaviour towards his brother Robert — who was deprived of his throne, of the Duchy of Normandy, and finally of his liberty — and for his opportunistic law and natural reason — generally considered irreconcilable. For instance, Mark Goldie writes that while the invocation of history ‘made it difficult to deny the historical fact of the king’s supremacy over parliament, [natural law] liberated the community to refashion itself as it thought fit’. Goldie, ‘The Roots of True Whiggism’, pp. 209–10). 130  Gordon, History of England, fol. 31v. 131  Gordon, History of England, fols 39r, 40v, 42r, 43r. Crusades, ‘those mad expeditions occasioned by bigotry of Princes’, were also commented on by Gordon in the sixth of his ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’ (sect. iv). 132  Gordon, History of England, fol. 55r.

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

121

and unwise decision to recall Anselm (‘his worst and most dangerous subject’) from exile. In fact, Anselm would soon challenge him in the crucially important dispute about powers of investiture, which ended, in 1107, with the Pope permitting the English bishops ‘to allow Henry to be their King’.133 Denunciation of the pride and covetousness of the clergy, seen both as a threat to political society and as undermining any plausible religious inspiration, consistently permeates the whole narrative, indeed the whole of Gordon’s literary output: What [Henry I] did in Compensation for all his Injustice, Oppression and private Sins, was the most sinful and oppressive Part of his Reign: I mean his lordly Endowments to Monks and Impostors, the Deluders, the Devourers and Incendiaries of the Earth, Mockers of God and sworn Foes to Truth and Conscience.134

Henry I, who quelled numerous revolts and consolidated his dominions, ‘was certainly an able man’, Gordon says, ‘indeed a hero, but like too many other heroes, wanted due tenderness for the lives and civil rights of men; though without that qualification no heroism is compleat’. However, he was shrewd enough not to completely ignore the commitments made in his famous coronation charter of 1101, ‘such a barrier to his own power, as he sometimes invaded, but never overthrew. […] For as he gained his best Title to the Crown from the Grant of the Charter, he preserved the Charter to preserve his Crown’.135 133 

Gordon, History of England, fols 63v, 71v: Rapin noted that Anselm had been ‘much applauded for his firmness in his contests with William Rufus and Henry I. But this same firmness maintaining the cause of the Pope, which was gloried in for so many centuries, would not meet with that approbation at the present’ (Rapin-Thoyras, The History of England, trans. by Tindal, i, 221). 134  Gordon, History of England, fol. 86v. Cf. fol. 91r (‘One of [the Bishops’] indispensible privileges, was to play the King over the King’) and 72r (‘God’s Will and the Will of the Clergy then widely differed. […] [T]hey had indeed different interests to serve’). See also fol. 101r: ‘Whoever can once persuade men that he comes from God (a task never found difficult to be performed, though he were the worst of men, and even below man, an ape or a serpent) is sure to gain unmeasurable credit amongst men, not the less for his contradicting God’s Truth and human Sense every day’. 135  Gordon, History of England, fol. 86. Cf. Rapin-Thoyras, The History of England, trans. by Tindal, i, 199: ‘Whereas [William Rufus] had no Learning at all, Henry was brought up to Letters, and made great progress in his studies. […] He retained all his life long a relish for the Sciences, imbibed in his youth. […] These fine qualities would have rendered him an accomplished Prince, had they not been fullied with many faults, among which, cruelty, avarice and an inordinate love of women, were most predominant. […] The Charter this Prince granted the Nation upon his accession to the Crown, is one of the most remarkable particulars of his Reign’.

122

Chapter III

Henry’s nephew Stephen of Blois tricked his way to the throne, perjuring himself along with the barons and leading prelates. In return for the ‘conditional allegiance’ of the barons, he granted them, before the Estates assembled at Oxford, ‘a new Great Charter fuller than the former’ and owned himself ‘chosen King by the Voice of the Nation; engaged strictly to observe all their Rights […] and to recal the old Saxon Laws’, but he very quickly discovered, to his expense, that ‘the strongest oaths are too weak to bind selfish consciences’.136 Dragged into civil war (‘the most bitter and merciless of all others!’), Stephen proved himself ‘superiour to all difficulties, animated by infinite courage, guided by equal prudence, and prompted by suitable industry. […] No hero in Story ever manifested more undaunted courage; nor ever was courage more effectually tried’.137 The celebration of his courage emphasizes by way of contrast the cowardice of the bishop of Winchester (Stephen’s brother and a papal legate) — described as ‘that formidable timeserver’ — and the arrogance of his cousin and rival, the Empress Matilda, who ‘scorned to be just, much less complaisant to any; because she fancied that she needed not’. As she ‘treated all her subjects as her slaves, her subjects all thought it time to convince her that they were not, nor would be slaves’.138 To King Stephen’s credit, Gordon concludes, ‘he strove to check the tyranny of Rome and of churchmen, who therefore laboured to overturn him and his power, because he would not meanly submit to theirs’.139 136 

Gordon, History of England, fols 91r-v, 95r. In 1121, Henry I, who had been widowed three years earlier, married Adeliza, daughter of Godfrey I of Leuven, duke of Lower Lotharingia, but there were no children from this marriage. Left without male heirs, Henry took the unprecedented step of making his barons swear to accept his daughter Empress Matilda, the widow of Henry V, the Holy Roman Emperor, as his heir. However, her sex and the fact that she remarried into the House of Anjou, an enemy of the Normans, provided Henry’s nephew Stephen of Blois a pretext to come to England and claim the throne with baronial support. The struggle between the former Empress and Stephen led to a long civil war known as the Anarchy. The dispute was eventually settled when Stephen named Matilda’s son, Henry Plantagenet, as his heir in 1153. 137  Gordon, History of England, fols 101v, 103. 138  Gordon, History of England, fols 104v, 107. According to Rapin, ‘it would be very difficult to justify all his [Stephen’s] proceedings in acquiring the Crown, and particularly the breach of his Oath. […] But however, the commendations due to his valour, clemency, and generosity, cannot be denied him. […] The troubles during this Reign furnished the Clergy with a favourable opportunity to exalt the Mitre above the Crown’ (Rapin-Thoyras, The History of England, trans. by Tindal, i, 211–12). 139  Gordon, History of England, fol. 115v. Antipopery informed royalist histories as well. More specifically, in the wake of the Exclusion Crisis (the attempt to exclude James, Duke of

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

123

10. The first Angevin King, Henry II, the son of Geoffrey Plantagenet and Henry I’s daughter Matilda, was arguably ‘the most potent Prince in Christendom’, with lands stretching from the Scottish borders to the Pyrenees. In 1154 (as Gordon takes pain to point out), in a ‘Convention of the States’ at Wallingford, he ‘confirmed, of his own free motion, the Great Charter and the Laws of Edward the Confessor’.140 The reign of Henry II was marked by his quarrels with Thomas Becket, the archbishop of Canterbury, ‘a creature of his own raising, a rebellious fanatic, labouring, under the countenance of the Pope, to exalt himself above his Sovereign, and to make the Priesthood direct, or rather abolish Kingship’. 141 The conflict (which culminated in Becket’s murder in 1170) arose over the ecclesiastical courts’ jurisdiction vis-à-vis capital crimes committed by priests and more generally over church-state relations in England. Commenting on Becket’s obstinacy and the interference of Pope Alexander III (who, in a letter to Henry, urged him to abrogate the Constitutions of Clarendon142), an outraged Gordon clearly alludes to the demands of the Anglican clergy in his own time: Opposition to the selfish schemes of churchmen will be enmity to the Church; any attempt to reform the clergy, an attack upon Religion; and a sincere desire to rescue Religion from the superstition and craft of impostors, a sign that Religion is wounded and in danger.143

The invasion of Ireland, a mission entrusted to Henry II by Adrian IV, the only English Pope, prompted further critical reflection on church meddling with state affairs and a long digression about Irish history. ‘The right of a Conqueror’, Gordon says, ‘is power to conquer: Henry had no other to Ireland, yet just as much to take it, as the Pope had to give it; and his Holiness might with equal assurance and title, have disposed of a planet, or a piece of the sky’. And clearly York, later James II, from succeeding to the English throne because he was a Catholic), some royalist historians, including Brady, had linked current theories of resistance to kings back to the medieval tradition of popish antimonarchism. See Rose, ‘Robert Brady’s Intellectual History and Royalist Antipopery in Restoration England’. 140  Gordon, History of England, fol. 119v. 141  Gordon, History of England, fol. 117r. 142  Gordon, History of England, fol. 172r. The majority of the sixteen articles issued by Henry II at the Council of Clarendon in 1164 dealt with the competence of ecclesiastical courts, while others defined the extent of papal authority in England. 143  Gordon, History of England, fol. 144v (the emphasis in italics is mine). Since the passing of the Toleration Act in 1689, High Churchmen like Francis Atterbury had stirred up an ongoing furore with the dictum of the ‘Church in Danger’.

124

Chapter III

echoing the Germania of Tacitus, as we have already seen, he adds, quite sombrely, that ‘Ireland, which seemed so great an acquisition to England, proved a sore plague to it. It was conquered in an instant, but could not be tamed in many centuries’.144 These comments are followed by detailed descriptions of the bitter disputes between Henry and his sons,145 interspersed by some cutting remarks about Henry prostrating himself on the tomb of ‘the new Idol’, St Thomas Becket (‘a short suspension of the King and the Man, [before] resuming his former character’),146 and the oppression of the Jews, from whom large sums of money were forcibly extorted in order to finance the reconquest of Jerusalem (‘as if the Country of Judaea, the Land promised and given by God to the Jews, once possessed by them, still reckoned their inheritance, were to be recovered at their expense, not to them, but to strangers and foreigners’).147 The next king dealt with in Gordon’s manuscript is Henry III. Although his reign started under the prudent regency of William Marshal, the first earl of Pembroke148 — ‘who sought the security and glory of the Crown from its natural source, that of tenderness and justice to the People’ — it was marked by constant violations of the Royal Oath, by the overwhelming influence of foreign favourites, and by the ‘blind subserviency’ of the king to papal dispositions.149 To pay 144 

Gordon, History of England, fols 160v, 163r. 145  In these pages it is possible to find the only references made by Gordon to Henry ‘the Young King’ (who predeceased his father Henry II), and to the following kings, Richard I (with his ‘Phrenzy of the Holy War’) and John (Lackland). On the basis of the manuscript housed in the British Library, separate chapters do not appear to have been given to any of them. See in particular fols 146r–48v, 164r, 175r–94v, 195r, 197v, 216v, 245v, 246r, 274r. 146  Gordon, History of England, fol. 177v. Severe judgments on Becket are also found in the ninth of Gordon’s ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’ (sect. v). 147  Gordon, History of England, fol. 188v. 148  In 1216, the English barons had rebelled in the First Barons’ War against the unpopular King John (r. 1199–1216). The barons offered the throne to Prince Louis (the future Louis VIII of France) who landed unopposed in England at the head of an army on 21 May. But just when it seemed that England was his, King John’s death in October caused many of the rebellious barons to desert Louis in favour of John’s nine-year-old son, Henry III. With William Marshall acting as regent, a call for the English ‘to defend our land’ against the French led to a reversal of fortunes on the battlefield. Louis was forced to make peace on English terms in September 1217 (Treaty of Lambeth). Both before and after the peace of 1217, William Marshal reissued King John’s Magna Carta of 1215, in which he featured as a signatory as one of the witnessing barons. 149  Gordon, History of England, fols 195v, 201r. Rapin observes that ‘the contests between Henry II, and Thomas Becket, and […] the tyranny exercised by the Popes in England under Henry III, furnish the chief materials for the Ecclesiastical History of these reigns. […] There

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

125

for debts arising from war with Wales, failed campaigns in France, and an extensive programme of ecclesiastical building, he resorted to frequent and exorbitant taxes: ‘His head, his heart, and his minister, seemed formed for one another, all at variance with common honesty, therefore with Charters, Law and People’.150 Gordon placed considerable emphasis on the dynamics of the relationship between the King and Parliament in the lead-up to the Second Barons’ War. It was Parliament that appealed to the King, during the regency of Hubert de Burgh, ‘to cause the Charter of their Liberties to be observed, according to his Oath’.151 It was Parliament that granted him supplies for his military expeditions.152 And it was Parliament that Henry turned to ‘in hopes to awe or influence them to condemn the Barons for the great guilt of maintaining their common rights’.153 What’s more, the Parliament included the Commons: when Henry, in return for a title for his second son Edmund, assumed the considerable debts of the papacy in its fruitless war with Sicily,154 ‘the Lords, the Clergy, the Commons, all are who look upon these four reigns [Henry II, Richard I, John Lackland, and Henry III] as a time of triumph for the Church, because in their notion of the Church the Pope and Clergy only are included. Others are of opinion, this was a time of oppression and slavery, because Christians were exposed to the oppressions of the Popes, who shamefully abused the authority they were suffered to assume’ (Rapin-Thoyras, The History of England, trans. by Tindal, i, 348). Motivated by a desire to Anglicize his rule, Henry III devoted much of his kingdom’s resources to glorifying St Edward. As Janelle Greenberg has pointed out, ‘Henry recognized the political advantages accruing from association with a king who was born a Saxon but raised a Norman, and, what was more, a king who had been canonized even before St Thomas, the great enemy of his grandfather, Henry II’ (Greenberg, The Radical Face of the Ancient Constitution, p. 44). 150  Gordon, History of England, fol. 222v. 151  Gordon, History of England, fol. 197r. Peter Des Roches (d. 1238), Bishop of Winchester, succeeded William (the) Marshal as guardian of the young king. However, the exercise of the royal authority was in the hands of the famous Justiciary Hubert de Burgh, (c. 1160–1243), who had played a prominent role in defending England from the invasion of Louis of France. During his regency (1219–27), de Burgh ‘gave Proof that not Law, but Will and Violence, was to be the Rule of his Administration’ (fol. 196v). ‘The Bishop-Regent, and other Ministers […] thought it unreasonable that, for so small a Consideration as the felicity of all men, a few great men should be retrenched in their pomp and pleasures. They had but one argument, always urged by bad Ministers to weak Princes, too often with Success; “that the Charter was extorted from former Kings”: though no otherwise extorted than the Crown was extorted from the People; that is, They were engaged to obey the King as their Sovereign, He, to treat Them as Freemen’ (fol. 197v). 152  Gordon, History of England, fols 199r, 205r. 153  Gordon, History of England, fol. 221v. 154 

In 1254, at the age of nine, Edmund was granted the title of King of Sicily and Apulia

126

Chapter III

oppressed, all incensed are all unanimous for relief and future security’.155 Finally, the leader of the baronial revolt against King Henry III, Simon de Montfort, who was eventually defeated and killed in the Battle of Evesham in 1265, is presented in Gordon’s account in unambiguously approving terms: This Nation seems greatly indebted to the Earl, for his gallant Struggles in defence of a free Establishment: Though he sunk under them, they had their effect; and henceforward it was always reckoned madness to attack it. He deserved high acknowledgments for checking the Tyranny of the Pope as well as of the King. […] He was unquestionably a Friend to his Country by his enmity to papal Power, which had been from the beginning the great Curse of Christendom, more particularly of England, the great Bane of Religion, Reason, Morality and Property.156

Edward I is not given a chapter in Gordon’s surviving narrative, but the latter’s severe remarks on the heavy tallages levied on Jews under Henry III and more generally on the oppression of Jews in England are such that it is not hard to divine Gordon’s thoughts on Edward I’s Edict of Expulsion of 1290.157 by Pope Innocent IV, on the understanding that his father would finance its conquest from the Holy Roman Empire. Four years later, after Henry ran out of money, Innocent withdrew the title. When Henry ‘demanded a powerful Aid for the most offensive purpose, he could have possibly urged, the ridiculous conquest of Sicily, he little expected such an answer as he found. […] The Parliament freely told him, that they would no longer trust him, nor leave to him what he had always promised and sworn, but never performed, the reformation of the State. […] As none can reform a State but they who govern it, the Parliament by this declaration avowed that they were going to take the exercise of Government out of his hands into their own’. The grievances, and suggestions for redress, were laid out in the Provisions of Oxford (1258). Henry was forced to bind himself ‘to ratify whatever conditions should be offered him by a Committee of twenty four Lords, half of them to be chosen by the Parliament. […] The President of this Council was Simon de Montfort, once the King’s Favorite. […] Henry who always aimed at power without Bounds, had by that very aim forfeited all power’ (fols 275–79). In 1261, Henry, ‘producing the Pope’s Bull discharging him from all his late tyes’, revoked his assent to the Provisions. ‘This was shocking enough, as it was declaring to his People that he was always ready to oppress and forswear, whenever he had the Pope’s permission to do either’ (fols 283–84). Civil war followed. 155  Gordon, History of England, fol. 274v. 156  Gordon, History of England, fols 294v, 295v. 157  See Gordon, History of England, fols 208v, 238v, 241r, 259v, 263r, 264v, 427v. Debate on the civil condition of the Jews in England was highly topical in the years when Gordon was writing his History. John Toland was a convinced supporter of a campaign for their naturalization, adapting the arguments used by Rabbi Simone Luzzatto in Venice to the English context. However, the proposed bill flopped miserably in 1753–54. On the circumstances which favoured greater interest in Jewish culture and literature, see Popkin, ‘Some Aspects of Jewish-

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

127

Only a few pages are devoted to the reign of Edward II, who was, according to Gordon, as ferocious as he was inept. ‘He was naturally a tyrant, but wanted capacity to practise tyranny’.158 Edward was dominated by his greedy favourites (Piers Gaveston, ‘that scandalous libertine’, 159 and the two Despensers) and hopelessly ineffective in his handling of the war with Scotland. Finally he was imprisoned by his wife Isabella and her ambitious lover, and stripped of the throne by Parliament. Gordon’s judgement is withering: By his pride and cruelty [Edward] had oppressed his People, and destroyed many valuable lives; violated his oath; […] abandoned his Trust. […] It is remarkable that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in his sermon upon declaring Prince Edward King, urged the Voice of the People to be the Voice of God.160

The next king, Edward III, succeeded to the throne when he was not yet of age. Conscious of the crimes and acts of tyranny committed by the regents — his mother Isabella and Mortimer —, he delivered up the former to the judgement of Parliament (‘so intirely had she forfeited all respect both from her Son and his People, that he found it as popular as necessary to accuse her to their Representatives’161) and managed to get the latter condemned without a hearing.162 He was himself not immune to the temptations of conquest, waging wars against France and Scotland. In battle (Crécy, Poitiers), he and his eldest son, the Black Prince, displayed extraordinary heroism but also great humanity towards their vanquished foes.163 But what is based on conquest and usurpation, Christian Theological Interchanges’, and Sutcliffe and Karp, ‘Introduction: A Brief History of Philosemitism’. 158  Gordon, History of England, fol. 319v (cf. Rapin-Thoyras, The History of England, trans. by Tindal, i, 402: ‘Though he had many failings, it may be affirmed to be more weak than wicked’). 159  Gordon, History of England, fol. 318r. 160  Gordon, History of England, fols 323v, 325r. On the appeal to the vox populi and the party exploitation of popular opinion in eighteenth-century England, see Gunn, Beyond Liberty and Property, pp. 73–79. The wave of ‘popular Toryism’ in 1710 is explored in Horsley, ‘Vox Populi in the Political Literature of 1710’. 161  Gordon, History of England, fol. 359v. 162  Gordon, History of England, fol. 360r. 163  Gordon here pays tribute to the Black Prince as an example of genuine virile heroism, for having treated, with ‘humanity, gentleness, generosity and moderation’, his adversary the King of France and all the prisoners of war ‘according to their several conditions’ (fols 371–76). Elsewhere in the History he denounces the risks of prelatic imposture, ‘which has crushed and brow beaten all manly knowledge and inquiries, and made ignorance the mother of devotion’.

128

Chapter III

Gordon once again warns, inevitably recoils on those who resort to it. This is demonstrated by the story of Jacob van Artevelde (c. 1290–1345), known as the Brewer of Ghent. At the start of the Hundred Years’ War, Artevelde promoted a neutral federation of Flemish cities (which depended upon England for wool, their main industrial raw material) and set up a kind of personal regime in the city of Ghent ‘by espousing the Interest and Priviledges of the People against the Incroachments and Oppressions of the Earl their Prince’. However, in 1345, suspicion that he intended to recognize Edward III’s son as the Count of Flanders led to a violent popular revolt and his death: In drawing his sword against the Prince he had gone too far not to go farther, done too much not to do more, and by having openly opposed the progress of tyranny, was become a terrible tyrant. […] This shews that the violence of the Governors is to be resisted with wisdom, and possible without violence; since this may prove a remedy worse than the disease’.164

England’s unwise involvement on a Spanish front gave France the pretext it needed to violate the peace treaty of Brétigny (1360) and to recover almost all its previous losses, with the exception of Calais: ‘The insincerity of Edward the third before the beginning of the War, was now amply repaid by Charles the fifth’.165 In the final years of his reign, Edward III’s relationship with Alice Perrers undermined, perhaps unduly, his reputation.166 Nonetheless, Gordon’s overall judgement is praising: ‘[Edward III] was too much a man to claim power divine, or even divine titles. […] He assumed no Prerogative inconsistent with the Laws much less above them, and thought he had no more Right to alter or abolish Laws because he was their Protector, than to destroy his People because he was their Sovereign’. Nor did he ever protest about the fate of his father, ‘so far was He also contrasts the ‘manly reign of Queen Elizabeth’ with the ‘unmanly pride’ of James I and the ‘great weakness’ of Edward II, who was unmanly not because of his homosexual relations but for his cowardice (which ‘never shews mercy’) and his tyrannical bent: ‘Whoever wants manly judgment, will ill support kingly dignity’ (see fols 46r, 385r, 397v, 322–23, 447r). ‘It is indeed apparent from our History, that those of our Princes who thirsted most violently after arbitrary rule, were chiefly such as were remarkable for poor spirit, and small genius, pedants, bigots, the timorous, and effeminate’ (Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, p. 228). It is worth recalling that in the eighteenth century the term ‘effeminacy’ was not unambiguously associated with homosexual tendencies, and conceptions of masculinity were principally determined by men’s social conduct rather than their sexual activity. See Carter, ‘Men about Town’. 164  Gordon, History of England, fols 369v, 370r. 165  Gordon, History of England, fol. 379v. 166  Gordon, History of England, fols 381–82.

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

129

he from thinking, much less contending, that the deposing of lawless Kings, was unlawful’.167 With the ‘happy reign’ of Edward III Gordon’s history of medieval England suddenly ends.168 Possibly rumours of an impending Jacobite rising pushed him to move on in his historical writing and to focus on the first Stuart monarch of England.169 11. The reign of James I, who was ‘frightened by the very name of War’, was very different to the ‘manly Reign of Queen Elizabeth’ and was greatly afflicted by the incontinence of his favourites. A detailed account of James I’s political views and policies enabled Gordon to dispute the theory of the divine origin of monarchical power and its indefeasible hereditary nature, the conception of the sovereign ‘as the sole Law-Giver’ and accountable to God alone,170 and the tenet that non-resistance and passive obedience were enjoined by God.171 More specifically, Gordon upheld the centrality 167 

Gordon, History of England, fol. 384 (further comments by Gordon on Edward III — as well as on Edward II and Richard II, ‘two of our weakest and worst Kings, at least till then’ (both were compelled to abdicate) — are found in Gordon, ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’, pp. 70, 75, 90, 138, 163, and in Gordon, ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’, IX, sect. vii). 168  The thesis that even the Confessor’s laws were ‘the product of a legislating parliament’ had been supported (by scholars like William Prynne and John Selden) by the argument that the parliament rolls, where the laws should have been recorded, were lost, and possibly not accidentally. King Richard II, amongst others, was said to have ‘defaced and raced’ the parliament rolls. See Weston, ‘England: Ancient Constitution and Common Law’, pp. 380–81. In the light of this, Gordon’s passing references to Richard II deserve mention: ‘This is what a Prince of a great and benevolent spirit will consider; not himself as a lordly Tyrant, nor them as his Property and Slaves; but himself and them under the amiable and engaging ties of Magistrate and fellow Citizens. Such was the difference between a Queen Elizabeth and a Richard the second’ (Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, pp. 227–28); ‘[Richard II] was a weak Prince, below Royalty, and above Advice’ (fol. 164r), ‘a Prince intoxicated like James, with Fancies of uncontrollable Sovereignty’ (fol. 408r). See also Trenchard and Gordon, Cato’s Letters, ed. by Hamowy, no. 36. 169  James VI of Scotland inherited the throne of England by virtue of the fact that he was the great-grandson of James IV’s English wife, Margaret Tudor, and the legitimate heir of Elizabeth I, who had died childless. 170  J. P. Sommerville has effectively recounted how in the seventeenth century different traditions of political thought were used ‘to free rulers from accountability to their subjects. One such tradition was the idea of the divine right of kings. […] Others derived the ruler’s power from an irreversible grant from the people’ (Sommerville, ‘Absolutism and Royalism’, pp. 348–49). 171  ‘Churchmen would not make so ill a bargain for themselves, as to compliment the

130

Chapter III

of Parliament’s legislative functions and its role in conferring legitimacy on the king’s sovereignty. James, he said, was ‘a King by Divine Right; as if the gift and consent of the States of the Realm had not been sufficient, when from them he had his whole Right’.172 Gordon mocks the verbosity of James I’s speeches and writings,173 and regrets his failure, in The Trew Law of Free Monarchies, to learn from his ‘excellent tutor’, George Buchanan. Much to his discredit, James contended that, ‘let [tyrants] be ever so bad, they are never to be opposed, much less removed: […] they deserve punishment; but they must only receive it from the Hand of God’. And in the face of Parliament’s opposition to the union of the Scottish and English legislatures, which involved the suppression of Common Law, James objected that ‘Kings were Gods, and had part of the Divinity’, but ‘Parliaments were no Gods, and it was presumption in them to direct one endowed with Divinity; still more so, to contradict him; worst of all, to thwart him’.174 King with passive Obedience, unless he paid them the like complement. […] They seemed to have forgot themselves to have been Protestants and Englishmen; and, in their antipathies and cruelty to their protestant brethren, not to have remembered, that they were Christians. Hence the beginning of the popular dislike to Churchmen, such as in the next reign had a terrible effect upon the Church itself ’ (Gordon, History of England, fol. 422r). 172  Gordon, History of England, fols, 385, 390v, 407v, 411r. 173  Works by James mocked in Gordon’s History include: his first biblical commentary, on Revelation, published in 1588 (‘He explains to his readers the unexplicable Revelations of St John, in a stile as positive as if St John, in person, had explained them to him’); Daemonologie of 1597 (‘He is as clear and communicative about witches and infernal spirits, as if he had lived amongst them. […] This book, crazy as it was, produced an Act of Parliament, made to flatter the Author, and to authorize the murder of ancient wretches, who had got an ill Name, of Witches or Wizzards, given them by ignorance, or malice, by the superstition of the rabble and of such as led the rabble. Many poor Innocents have thus perished, been imprisoned, tortured, hanged, drowned and burned, by the Authority of a Law; the most dangerous sort of murder!’); Basilikon Doron (1598), a practical manual of kingship, written for James’ son Henry (‘His moral advices to Prince Henry, who wanted them much less than his adviser, have little strength and less meaning, as he never practised them himself ’); The Trew Law of Free Monarchies (1598); A Counterblaste to Tobacco (1604), ‘a strange performance, though not stranger than the rest’; and finally the writings against Vorstius and the Arminians in Holland (‘Thus he is an advocate for the Calvinists and Puritans, and holds their Creed of Predestination, etc. Yet he hates the Puritans, who were Calvinists, and is always railing at them in his conversation and writings’) and those directed against Cardinal Bellarmine and Cardinal du Perron, in which James argued against the papal claims of the deposing power over secular rulers (‘So he writes against Papists, and is a friend to Popery’). See Gordon, History of England, fols 393v–397r. 174  Gordon, History of England, fols 395v, 441r. The speeches by James alluded to here are the ones addressed to Parliament on 9 November 1605 (mainly concerning the circumstances

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

131

Nor did James dissociate himself from the arguments of ‘two treasonable libels’, which he himself had approved: The Interpreter (1607) by the lawyer John Cowell according to which ‘the King was not bound by the Laws, nor by his Coronation Oath’, and Adam Blackwood’s Pro regibus apologia (1581), in which he claimed that ‘the whole English Nation were hereditary slaves ever since the Norman Conquest’.175 Moreover, in the Hampton Court Conference of 1604, James, a Calvinist turned Catholic who was even keen on a ‘Union with the Papists’, had displayed his partiality for the Anglican episcopacy and his aversion to the ‘puritans’,176 confirming the political usefulness to a despotic king of an alliance with the bishops: The King frequently repeated a favourite maxim of his, no Bishop, no King; as if the Order of Bishops were essential to Monarchy, when they had so frequently distressed and humbled Monarchs: Besides that the System of Church Government by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans and Chapters, savours much more of a Commonwealth. But the Kirk had curbed him, and the Bishops flattered him. […] The poor Puritans […] were objects of special hate upon all accounts, as they could not allow the King’s Will to be Law, nor the Will of the Archbishop, to be Gospel.177

It is significant that as historiographic debate raged in the press, Gordon did not hesitate to use the same arguments against government propaganda as The Craftsman: Such English Princes who assumed to levy money without Parliaments, and to make Laws, or to dispense with Laws, were always opposed, often deposed by Parliament. […] Nor was the Royal Dignity considered as only personal to him; but worne by him for the maintenance of the high Office, which he bore for the of the Gunpowder Plot, discovered four days earlier) and on 31 March 1607 (largely devoted to the theme of the union between England and Scotland). The accession speech (19 March 1603) and the speech of 21 March 1609/1610 are also referred to through the chapter. 175  Gordon, History of England, fols 421v–454r. John Cowell (1554–1611) was regius professor of civil law in Cambridge and a close ally of Richard Bancroft, the archbishop of Canterbury. Due to the hostility aroused in the House of Commons, the king found it politic to suppress the Interpreter in 1610. It was reissued, unaltered, in 1637. Blackwood’s Pro regibus apologia was an attack upon Calvinist resistance theory, and his fellow countryman Buchanan in particular. See Sommerville, Politics and Ideology in England, pp.  68–69; Sommerville, ‘Absolutism and Royalism’, pp. 359, 365; Salmon, ‘Catholic Resistance Theory’, pp. 234, 249. 176  Gordon, History of England, fol. 421v: ‘For all Men of moderate principles, and tender conscience, all who soothed not the reigning vices, all who opposed lawless Prerogative, and blamed the servile strains at Court, as well as the pious fooleries in the Church, were branded for Puritans’. 177  Gordon, History of England, fols 404v, 406r.

132

Chapter III

Utility of the State. […] The Liberties of the People of England are not derived even from Magna Charta, but are presupposed and confirmed by it.178

Also reminiscent of topical concerns was Archbishop Bancroft’s resentment towards the judges for having applied, ‘as they were obliged by their oath and duty, the laws against ecclesiastical delinquencies, which were many scandalous and oppressive’.179 The manuscript breaks off at the point in which Gordon is dwelling on the flimsiness of James’s assurances: ‘He says, for example, that “a King degenerates into a Tyrant, when he ceases to rule according to his Laws”, that is, Laws of his own making. And then there can be no Tyrant; for every Tyrant has a Will, which is his Law, and the People must take it for theirs’.180 12. Gordon’s History was never published (possibly because the Jacobite threat visibly receded), although the limited number of corrections made to the surviving manuscript and the presence of duplicate copies with minimal discordances suggest that what had been written was considered by the author to be finished and ready for publication. Despite his unsparing use of inverted commas for the speeches, suggesting direct quotations from source documents, and his extensive reading of historical works, Gordon does not usually provide footnote references. It could be speculated that specific references would have been added to Gordon’s manuscript at a later stage. However, the fact that extracts from the chapter on William the Norman were published without the addition of footnotes and primary source citations suggests a deliberate intent on the author’s part to try his hand at a narrative art form handed down from classical antiquity. Clearly Gordon’s History has a Tacitean flavour inasmuch as it exposes corruption and flattery, uncovers the hidden motives of its characters, and resorts to graphic maxims for the education of political leaders.181 178  Gordon, History of England, fol. 408. The passage quoted here is clearly at odds with Anne Mitchell’s affirmation, in her doctoral thesis (p.  50), that Gordon (and Trenchard) ‘subscribed to the Court Whig interpretation of England’s history, which relied on the Royalist Robert Brady’s account of the nation’s progress from feudal despotism to modern liberty’. 179  Gordon, History of England, fol. 422v. As mentioned in the first chapter, during the reign of George II the ‘Old Whigs’ had repeatedly, though unsuccesfully, attempted to introduce legal measures designed to curtail the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. 180  Gordon, History of England, fol. 459v. 181  In the surviving manuscript of Gordon, History of England (‘our Annals’, he says at fol. 195r), Tacitus is mentioned five times (fols 301r, 366v, 367v, 415v, 434v). The first two

‘The wisdom of governing by Law’

133

The History is a partisan text, and possibly too narrowly political. Its main metanarrative theme is the struggle between ‘the Government of Will’ and ‘the Government of Laws’ — with the struggle between ‘God’s Will’ and ‘the Will of the Clergy’ as an essential rhetorical subtheme.182 There is no link (how could there be?) with the later Scottish historical school that transcended the ideological conflict between parties and interpreted the transition from ‘barbaric and feudal to commercial and polite society’ in terms of a stadial process in which the gradual division and specialization of labour and the multiplication of interactions between human beings of both sexes determined the production and distribution of wealth.183 However, Gordon’s History does offer the reader some glimmers of modernity, in the way all theological or providential colouring is erased from the historical narrative, in its search for an exclusive human and rational causality for historical events, in its denunciation of the ferocity and iniquity of the Spanish plundering of the West Indies, and the belief in the superiority of trade over gold.184 Above all, ‘the poison poured out on Christendom’185 in the History, in the ‘Political Discourses’ on Tacitus and Sallust, and in many of Gordon’s writings anticipated more mature and solidly argued Enlightenment narratives.

passages refer to the ‘Political Discourses’ and the last two to King James I quoting Tacitus. Fol. 367v refers to Tacitus, Historiae 3. 81 (Tacitus here ridicules the Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus — also remembered for being the teacher of Epictetus — for his untimely moralizing). 182  Gordon, History of England, fols 459v, 72r, 82v. 183  Pocock, ‘The Varieties of Whiggism’, pp. 252–53. See also Wright, ‘Historical Writing in the Enlightenment World’; Stuurman, Global Equality. 184  Gordon, History of England, fols 25v–27r. 185  Pocock, Barbarism and Religion, ii (1999): Narratives of Civil Government, p. 38; iii (2003): The First Decline and Fall, pp. 320, 323.

Part II History of England by Thomas Gordon

© The British Library Board. Add. MS 20780

Foreword to the Critical Edition

A

n annotated critical edition of Thomas Gordon’s unfinished History of England is published here for the first time. The original manuscript, written out for the press by an amanuensis, and with corrections in the author’s handwriting, is held in the manuscript collections of the British Library (MS Add. 20780). It runs to 459 folios, written on both sides of the paper, including duplicates and variants. This edition follows the original manuscript as regards spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. Only digraphs have been normalized (e.g. cheif  →  chief ). Tildes and brevigraphs have been silently expanded (inõcent, cõmon → innocent; common; &, &c. → and, etc.). Contractions have also been silently expanded and superscripts generally lowered (e.g. W.m → William; w.ch → which; Xt → Christ; þe → the). Double-stroke hyphens have been replaced with single-stroke hyphens. Line-fillers have been ignored and dashes at the end of sentences converted into full stops. Text with single and double underlining has been italicized. Single quotation marks have been adopted as the standard form, and double ones are used only to enclose a quotation within a quotation. Indentations have been retained. Three levels of footnotes (author’s notes, the critical apparatus, and editor’s notes) are provided. Editorial material within the text and the apparatus is given in angle brackets. The editor’s notes are essentially intended to give readers, particularly those less familiar with the medieval and Stuart history of England, a chronological framework that makes it easier to follow Gordon’s narrative.

Text-critical sigla A

antigraph

B

second extant source (which generally incorporates marginal and intertextual corrections made to the antigraph)

:

Separates variants of the same word/phrase

xxx

illegible text within a word

abcd

uncertain reading

abcd

text added above line

abcd

text added below line

|abcd|

text added within line

 abcd

text added in left margin

abcd

deleted text if legible

[[…]]

deleted text if illegible in MS

ab

‘a’ overwritten by or corrected into ‘b’

ab

index reference specifying which ‘a’ is referred to (when ‘a’ occurs more than once in the line)

|

page break (within the text); separates corrections in the same line (in the apparatus)

< >

encloses conjectured text (in the text) or editor’s comments (in the apparatus)

Walter Calverley Trevelyan’s letter

accompanying the donation of the manuscript of Gordon’s History to the British Museum (1855)

[British Library, Add. MS 20780, fol. 1]

Before I finish, I must inform my readers, that I have more service to offer them. I have been some years engaged in the History of England, and intend to pursue it. My first intention was to write the Life of Cromwell only: but as I found, that in order to describe his times, it was necessary to describe the times which preceded and introduced his, and that I could not begin even at the Reformation; I have begun at the Conquest, and gone through several Reigns, some of them seen and approved by the ablest judges; such judges as would animate the slowest ambition. Half of it will probably appear a few years hence: the whole will conclude with the History of Cromwell. The Works of Sallust translated by T. Gordon, London 1744, Introduction, p. xxi.

I

t does not appear that any part of the History of England promised in the above passage was ever printed. This packet probably contains nearly as much of it as was ever written and prepared for the press with corrections in the author’s handwriting. It contains the reigns of William I and II. Henry I, II and III. Stephen, Edward II and III and James I, some of them in duplicate. The author died in 1750 and his library was sold to J. Whiston, but this manuscript remained in the possession of his widow, who survived him till 1783. From Mrs Gordon it came to the late Sir John Trevelyan, she being his great aunt as shewn in the annexed descent. Mrs Gordon’s first husband was Mr Trenchard, the great friend and joint laborer with Mr Gordon in several political periodicals. Together with this history | was preserved a MS Essay in the same hand, ‘Upon Persecution, and the natural ill-tendency of power in the Clergy, occasioned by the Trial and tragical death of Lord Cobham’. For a notice of, and extracts from

Walter Calverley Trevelyan’s letter

140

it, see ‘Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties, by Robert Cox, Edinburgh, 1853’, p. 245, 246. and for a short notice of this History of England see the Gentleman’s Magazine for December 1843.1 Sir William Blackett = of Wallington Bar.t

Sir William B. =

Julia = Walter Calverley

Anne = 1. John Trenchard o.s.p. = 2. Th.s Gordon o.s.p.*

Julia Calverley = Sir George Trevelyan Sir John Trevelyan = Simond Sir John Trevelyan = Maria Wilson Sir Walter Calverley Trevelyan *  Obiit sine prole (died without issue)

There is a short passage in the Life of Henry II (fol. 25) which shews T. Gordon’s opinion of Cromwell,2 whose life he either did not live to write, or it has been lost; but the life of James I terminates abruptly, was probably the last which he wrote. ‘Cromwell, who acted so much like a great Prince, that it is a pity he had not been a just one’. Presented to the British Museum by Walter Calverley Trevelyan May. 1855

1  2 

Trevelyan, ‘T. Gordon’s History of England’. See Gordon, History of England, fol. 167r.

Chapter 1

Of William the Norman, his Conquest and Conduct, and of Conquerors in General fol. 2r

fol. 2v

William was a manifest Invader, upon false and ridiculous pretences.1 His undertaking was as strangely rash, as it was wonderfully successful. His only Title to the Crown was what he gained after his 5 Victory and what the People gave him, upon the usual restrictions, and an Oath taken to preserve their Laws and Liberties. And tho’ they gave him the Crown merely out of fear, yet upon his magnificent Promises and fair behaviour, they were not sorry for what they had done, but frankly disposed to trust him. But this good Corres- 10 pondence held not long. His ambition for more power, his distrust of what he had, his natural avarice and real wants, made him plunder and oppress Them, and Them hate and curse Him. It was the natural Consequence of such Adventures. Conquest is always attended with mutual Distrust between the Conqueror and 15 the conquered. As it cannot be attempted without fraud, or violence, or both, on his part, it will of course | produce Resentment, probably

1 Observations upon ⎡Of⎤ 2 | , and | | [[...]] ⎣of Conquerors in General ⎦ 3 He ⎡William⎤ 5 – 6 ⎡he gained after his Victory and what [[...]]⎤ 12 wants] [[...]] 1

Edward the Confessor had died without children on 5 January 1066. On the same day as his funeral, Earl Harold Godwinson had been crowned king, it would seem by Alfred, archbishop of York. William, the duke of Normandy, contended that Edward, who had spent much of his life in exile in Normandy during the Danish occupation of England, had promised him the throne when he visited Edward in London in 1051. William also had a tenuous blood claim through his great aunt Emma (Æthelred II’s wife and Edward’s mother).

142

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 1

Revolt on theirs. Whatever step, at least whatever extraordinary step he takes for his Settlement and Security will allarm and provoke Them, and therefore alienate their hearts from Him. Then probably follow Conspiracies and Treason, real or imputed, with prosecutions, executions and confiscations without end. Every new method taken to avenge and secure Him, will be, or seem to be, so many Acts of oppression upon Them; every measure pursued by Them for their own relief, will be or seem to be, so many acts of Rebellion against Him, and followed with fresh violence from him. Here is abundant seed for mortal strife and furious animosity, for endless War or endless Tyranny. The best Princes give up, at least greatly violate that Character, when they set up for Conquerors. The very attempt implies a violation of all, or most of the Rules and Restraints of Morality, as well as those of humanity. Even in acquiring their Right (if they have any) they will be forced to do what is wrong, to slay and destroy the innocent as well as the guilty, generally most of the former, as these are most defenceless and | unwarned. Our Edward the third, one of the worthiest, one of the bravest Princes that ever reigned or conquered, descended to very low dissimulation and falshood towards the King of France, in order to hide his designs upon that Kingdom; and though in carrying it on, he and his admirable Son reaped surprising success, which never fails to purchase great Glory; yet such terrible Evil and Calamites ensued as, in the scale of Wisdom and true Policy, no such Glory could counterballance; so many Lives lost, such lasting havock from Plague and Famine, Towns and Cities sacked, plundered, burned and massacred! yet all these costly and calamitous Conquests, wrong in the very design of them, and ruinous in their pursuit, were presently lost, and recovered back to France faster by fraud than they had been acquired from her by valour. As all Conquerors are likely to be hated, no conqueror can think himself safe. He will therefore try all expedients, and grasp at all power to make himself safe, yet, after all his best skill and efforts, will often find himself in danger. No Prince, be he ever so jealous, could slay his Successor; as Trajan was wont to observe. And no Mon-

fol. 3r

1 best ⎡least⎤ 3 ⎡probably⎤ 17 theyse 28 and] [[...]] 29 ⎡back to France faster⎤ 30 fraud] faster | ⎡from her⎤ 34 danger] be he ever so jealous 34 – 35 ever slay ⎡could slay⎤

Of William the Norman

fol. 3v

fol. 4r

fol. 4v

143

arch, | no Conqueror ever disappointed his Fate or baffled the hand that destroyed him. He who makes most enemies has always most to fear. Who makes so many as a Conqueror? The conquered are for the most part miserable, scorned and ill treated, or expect to be, therefore ready to catch at every help and support, however weak and helpless. The Conqueror is always finding or fearing their resentment and attempts, and always punishing them, or striving to prevent them. Thus they more and more abhorr him, he them, and both study to destroy one another. The every attempt to conquer them is an unpardonable injury and insult: It implies a design to master and enslave them; a condition full of horrour to any People, who surely will ever doom it just to be enemies to their enemy, and to destroy an open destroyer. If Battles ensue and many are slain in their own defence, as ’tis a miracle if there be not, the blood of Patriots, like the Blood of Martyrs, is prolific, teeming with fresh Patriots, and calling loud for vengeance on account of those lately killed. The like stimulation will urge and sharpen the spirit of the Conqueror for the Lives of | his Companions, perhaps of his Relations, slain in his cause. Even when superiour force and fortune, as those of William the Norman, have brought the Bodies of men, and perhaps their Lips to acquiesce, their spirits will remain ulcerated, sullen and revengeful, or be thought so, and fresh cautions with severe measures will be taken, as if they were so, and will therefore make them so. They will see with aching Hearts their enemies become their Masters, their Liberties violated and overthrown with their Laws; their persons despised, their property precarious or plundered, their bravest spirits obnoxious or cowed, imprisoned, banished or sacrificed; see the usurpers rioting in wealth, places and authority, all once their own, now torn from them for ever; see themselves groaning under oppression and servitude and despised for being so: Yet when they are at the lowest, in a state the most impotent and forlorn, they will behold their Masters and Oppressors still fearing and hating them, still further humbling them, and making wretches yet more wretched. Hence new efforts, civil war and general desolation, and to increase all, | Foreigners called in, possibly public enemies, or such as will prove so, though brought in as Friends.

24 with] regret and

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

144

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 1

Most Conquerors therefore have ever been, ever must be Tyrants; the poor people are always forced to pay for the means and bonds of their own misery; and chains, poverty and desolation are the natural effects of Conquest, such as were terribly felt from and under William the Norman, and began not to stop ’till the Reign of Henry the first, nor then from any good Principle in him, but from policy and the necessity of his Affairs. He had seized the Kingdom from his elder Brother, and engaged his faith to the Nobility and Landholders to restore their violated Immunities, if they supported him in it. Hence was produced the Great Charter; ascertaining the English Liberties, and re-establishing the ancient British and Anglo-Saxon Laws. Should the conquered acquiesce under the Chains, a consequence scarce ever be presumed, the contrary will be apprehended, at least pretended, and new methods of oppressing them will be taken under colour of preventing them from resisting their Oppressors: So that they will always | be guilty, or thought so, and at all adventures charged with Guilt. It will thus be judged but good Policy to drain and exhaust them, perhaps to thin them. But as such Policy is not to be declared or owned, other Causes will be found, which however false it will not be safe to dispute. The Prince perhaps wants money to pay his Debts, contracted to subdue them; and who must furnish money to clear them, but the people subdued? The very war undertaken for their destruction must be at their expence. Are the Partizans and Minions, the Captains and Followers of the Conqueror to be gratified and provided for? How is it to be done, but out of the Lands and Fortunes, out of the bread and blood of the conquered? This was the honest practice of William the Norman, these his righteous measures, and such a Father to the English proved this ravening enemy to England. Thus in Time, nay in a short Time, the conquered may cease to be a People, but lose their name and Being with their Country and their Lives (as the English were very near doing under the Conqueror, and probably had done then or soon after, but for a particular accident) | or, which is a worse Evil, they are likely to possess their name and their Lives in Slavery and Scorn. What stronger considera-

18 ⎡judged⎤ 33 ⎡doing⎤ 35 – 36 both ⎡their name and their Lives⎤

fol. 5r

fol. 5v

Of William the Norman

fol. 6r

fol. 6v

145

tion can be presented to the heart of men to animate them to love their Country, and defend it to their last Breath? The Promises and Assurances given by William to the English, made the English tollerably easie as long as he observed such Promises; which he neither did, nor well could long do. He had conquered the English by the Assistance of the Normans; and, to gratify the Normans, he must plunder the English. He could not keep his Engagements to both and therefore sacrificed his new Subjects to his old. He could not but have foreseen all this at first, that he could not rule this Country without oppressing it, and was in his intention, what he proved to be in fact, a barbarous Tyrant. Nor could ever have attempted a Conquest so mighty, so infinitely above any domestic strength of a Duke of Normandy but by cantoning out this great Kingdom amongst his Followers, before he ever set his foot as a Conqueror in it. Many of the Adventurers with him were free Sharers, many of them not his Subjects, only allured by hopes of Booty and | a Promise of Lands and a Settlement. It was therefore the Interest of his Followers, and his Bargain with them, that, as he was to be master of England by force, so he was to oppress and impoverish the English. So incapable was he, either in his Circumstances, or in his Policy and Nature, of doing Justice to the English against the violence and oppression of particular Normans, that he not only set them the example, but it was upon such Terms that they served him. The first tax that he laid was as odious as it was arbitrary, and most rigorously levied. This was an allarming stroke, little suiting his fair professions and his solemn Oath. As it was to raise money for the Norman Troops, the poor English sadly saw themselves doomed to be the property and base Vassals of Foreigners. Was there not cause for sore grief and popular wailings? These however served for Grounds or Pretences to the Conqueror to treat them as Rebels, as he would have done even without such Pretences, had he not now forced them to furnish him with these. His throne was founded in Violence, and he was resolved | that Violence should support his Throne. He had such contempt for his honour, as well as for his Subjects, that he parted not with the money raised by the late detestable

5 ⎡do⎤ 23 ⎡that⎤ 34 – 35 it ⎡his Throne⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

146

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 1

Tax towards paying his Normans, though for them only he avowed to have raised it. That money he kept to himself as a Fund against the unhappy People from whom he had squeezed it.2 Hitherto he had only drained them, and robbed them but in part: He next proceeds to strip them to the skin, upon a charge against them founded upon downright impudence, I mean that of their having adhered to their late lawful King Harold the 2d when they had no other, and could own no other. But William had no peace whilst the English had any Land: And no naked Argument will do against a naked Sword. He seized great numbers of Estates with as little Ceremony as Justice or Mercy; and when by these and every other bitter and furious oppression, he had made the miserable Nation stark mad, his next course was to punish them for being what he had made them; and therefore besides infinite vengeance, capital and corporal, he at once seized into his own hands all Baronies | and Fiefs of the Crown whatsoever, and reduced all the Nobility and Land-holders in England to a State of nakedness and want of Bread. Their Estates thus barbarously taken from them he profusely granted to his Kindred, Favorites and Followers, all Forreigners. Some of these rioted in the Revenues of whole Counties; many numbered their Manors by hundreds; others were made Masters and Proprietors of great Towns and Cities; the rest commanded Castles and Fortresses, now purposely built to ensure the everlasting Bondage of the wretched English; and all these potent Upstarts had it now in their option to oppress or to feed the genuine Lords and Proprietors their Predecessors, I mean such of them as the unkind cruel mercy of the Conqueror had left to live bereft of Dignity and Bread. These new Lords, who were governed by the maxims and spirit of their Master, admitting none to hold under them but their own Creatures and Countrymen, England was in a direct way to lose it’s name, which was absurdly any longer derived from any number of

fol. 7r

1 ⎡them⎤ 26 – 27 cruelty ⎡mercy⎤ 2

William’s revenue has been classed under four main heads: royal demesnes, voluntary gifts, legal taxes, and tyrannical exactions. The odious Danegeld, ranging from one to six shillings on each hide of land, was exacted with the utmost rigour.

Of William the Norman

fol. 7v

fol. 8r

147

meer Slaves. Why that name | was not lost with the property and independency of the Natives, will appear hereafter. This wonderful Revolution of Ranks and Property, so universal and so sudden, as hardly to be paralelled in any Country, under any Tyrant, upon any provocation, contracted additional Guilt and Horror from the late insidious countenance and measures of the Conqueror, much more soft than usual and promising a just and fatherly Reign. He had been just doing many Acts of popularity; he had remitted the severe exercise of power, recalled the exiled, released the imprisoned, shewed great tenderness to the English, nay such partiality as to check and punish on their account the insolence of the Normans. He had gone still further and assembled from all parts of the Kingdom such noted Englishmen as from their Quality and Wisdom could best acquaint him with the ancient Laws and Customs, in order, as he professed, to confirm them. This change of conduct in him had produced a real one in the Minds of the English, who began to forget all their past bitter treatment, in hopes of better to come. In him it had been all a Feint, the effect of his | present dread of an actual Invasion, then in the North, from Denmark. As soon as he had bribed away that danger by money to the Danish General, he thought of nothing but vengeance without allay.3 Besides all the human Victims to his rage, on this occasion, he vented it upon the Buildings and Soil, and, in the best part of the North, for sixty miles together, spread desolation so compleat as, in all that tract, not to leave house or church, or subsistence for man or beast. He was indeed least merciful to such as he did not forthwith destroy, but left to the pangs of famine, to seek relief under it from the most lothsome Carrion, from the most shocking vermin and insects, and from the flesh of one another till the last expired bereft even of that horrible Food. Such devastation and mortality conver-

5

10

15

20

25

30

2 indepen⎡den⎤cy 8 ⎡he had⎤ 28 ⎡to1⎤ | the] [[...]] 31 Food]:. 3

Although the Danes were bribed to leave the north, King Sweyn of Denmark and his ships threatened the east coast (in alliance with a number of English nobles, including Hereward the Wake) until a peace treaty was concluded in June 1070.

148

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 1

ted that fine Region into so absolute a Desart, that for many Years the marks of a Plough, or of any human Culture, were not seen in it. This was such a way of extinguishing a Rebellion as was most likely to produce another, where any men were left to begin it. Rebellion, as he was a Usurper, he could not | but expect: Yet he met with none after his Coronation ’till he had violated his faith; nor even then till he began to treat them as Rebels, because they complained of such violation. As he had proved a faithless usurper he might the rather expect it; and after it happened a few punishments and many pardons were the surest method to prevent another and more. Few very bloody men are good Politicians. True Policy is always merciful or strives to appear so. William the Norman seemed to consider Government as a State of war, and that he was to support himself in the one by the Slaughter of his Subjects as in the other by that of his Enemies. I see many strokes of Courage, but hardly of good Government during his Reign. He was always treating his People cruelly, and always in a rage with them for feeling his cruel treatment. When William had thus as it were extinguished all the English Nobility and Landholders, not only by taking away their lives and ranks, but what supported both, their property, he extended his savage Scheme | to the English Clergy, despising their privileges, trampling upon their Charters, and subjecting them to what Burdens he pleased. Where they submitted, he used them as Slaves and half starved them: Where they asserted their Rights, he treated them like Traitors, stripped them of their Freeholds, and put Normans in their room. Most of his Army was quartered upon the Monastries; a measure which, had it been legal, would have been reasonable, as any use of their Revenues was better than the common use. He even caused all religious Houses to be searched for things of value, said to be reposited there by the Exiles and Rebels. Whatever real or no Ground there was for this search, it proved a lucrative one to him, as in it all the dead wealth in these Houses was seized for him; nor were their most holy Fooleries of price spared, the rich ornaments of their Saints and Shrines, their massy Plate, or any of their precious consecrated Gear. He bore no aversion or even prejudice to the Clergy as Clergy; for like many other men falsly devout, as well as detestably

30 ⎡the⎤ 36 devo⎡u⎤ted

fol. 8v

fol. 9r

Of William the Norman

fol. 9v

fol. 10r

149

wicked and bloody, he was such a Bigot, as to bestow great wealth and donations upon Churches and Monastries, a thing which few besides Bigots | will do. No good man wants any such way of acceptance with God; and every wise man knows that all such ways are folly, knows that the great and wise God, who makes no Friars, or any thing else so unlike himself, gives no such encouragement to guilt and iniquity, as it would be, were the worst and the blackest to be cancelled by Bounties to a Friary. William hated the English Clergy because they were Englishmen; and all his past violence towards them, was not thought enough by him: As long as any of them, at least any of eminence amongst them remained, so long did his Rage and Distrust, towards them. He therefore by juggling with the Pope,4 who for Ends of his own, was always glad to have Foreigners preferred here, got his consent to deprive all the most obnoxious English Dignitaries at a Blow: Some of them he banished, others he imprisoned, and supplied all the vacancies with Ecclesiasticks from abroad. This was the Return which the English Ecclesiasticks found from the Usurper or their great complaisance to him, and for their ready and early acquiescence under his Usurpation. It was thus they had hoped to have gained | him to their own Interest, whatever became of the rest of the Kingdom, which they were at all Times famous for never regarding when their own was once safe. And had William confined his oppression, his seizures, confiscations and other inhuman measures to the Laity; had he especially gratified the Monks with part of the Spoil, they would have hallowed his Right to all the Rest, and defended his most unhallowed Doings. No Tyrant that had courted the Clergy, was ever reckoned a Tyrant in their Books: Many such have been sainted there. Probably the Norman inferred from their Treachery to their Country, that they would prove faithless to Him: An argument of great weight, as long as he persisted in not soothing and bribing them to be faithful.

5

10

15

20

25

30

2 – 3 some but ⎡few besides⎤ 10 ⎡thought⎤ 19 ⎡for⎤ 28 ⎡ever⎤ 4

The papacy was occupied by two vigorous pontiffs in these years: Alexander II (1061–73) and Gregory VII (1073–85).

150

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 1

He, who had kept no faith, had of all men no Right to expect it from any. Yet the English, who had suffered on their part all the Misery, Cruelty and Scorn that Malice, Avarice and Revenge could inflict on his, had the Folly, the good nature and misfortune to trust him again, even after they had incensed him afresh by an effort to rescue themselves from such grinding distress and such a merciless | Oppressor. As dying bravely was certainly preferable to their miserable Life, when once they had betaken themselves to arms they should have perished rather than laid them down before they had disabled their implacable Tyrant from finally destroying them as a Nation. He was so universally and indeed so singularly abhorred, that in all the numerous Army, which was drawn together by the Conspirators against him, not a man was found to inform him that there was any Conspiracy: So that before he knew himself in any Danger, they were in motion to depose him, and had probably succeeded had they been as wise as they were strong. Indeed his best expedient to escape their fury was to disarm their hands. He in truth made manifest his fears as well as guilt by submissively making the first advances to the Leaders of the Revolt, and appeared so much changed and in earnest as to engage them in a conference. He knew the whole nation to be so intirely with them, that he scarce ventured to offer them any Terms, but | implicitely yielded to theirs. He calmly suffered them to represent all their manifold Complaints, which were so many reproaches upon his Reign; to display all their bitter grievances, enow to blacken his whole conduct, and to justify their own however far they carried it. He could defend himself in nothing, therefore confessed all, by promising solemnly to reform and redress all. To gain their belief and confidence he gave them his Soul for a pledge, and by an awful public oath upon the holy Evangelists, submitted to be damned if he broke his word, or ruled otherwise, for the Future, than according to the ancient known Laws of England. Thus he disarmed them of their Fears, and they their Followers of their weapons, which were the only avenging Devils he most feared. The Leaders broke their Army, and he his oath.

6 [[...]] ⎡grinding⎤

fol. 10v

fol. 11r

Of William the Norman

fol. 11v

fol. 12r

151

Was there ever more amazing folly on one side, or more dreadful fraud on the other? They wofully felt, what they might have easily foreseen, that necessity had only taught him to deceive, but not to mend or forgive. The solemnity of his Oath and engagements did but whet his vengeance, instead of stifling it. He considered | what he had done to appease the English a disgrace received from them, such a disgrace as he resolved to wash away with their Blood. Real mercy and justice he never had shewn, though he had lately been forced to shew some shame for having wanted them. Having now no longer cause of fear he returned to his wonted want of shame and humanity, of Justice and Faith, of every other social Virtue, and of every amiable Passion. They who had been the Witnesses and Depositaries of his Oath first felt his perjury and rage. Nor was strange to see him treat as Traitors those men who had suffered him to use them like Dupes. He had but deceived them on purpose to destroy them: He therefore set about their destruction with profuse barbarity, which was more bitterly felt by those of them whom he starved in Dungeons and Exile, than by such whom he only butchered. The Havoc and Massacre was mighty, unrelenting and extensive, as the Conspiracy had been popular and formidable. This course tended to make People | rather desperate than tame: Excessive cruelty for one Conspiracy, is the readiest way to produce another: So much mistaken are they who by such cruelty think to prevent any more. A Prince is never safe from his People whilst they find themselves unsafe from their Prince. A Prince therefore who acts like a Destroyer must be in constant peril of being destroyed. William’s endless Vengeance and Executions after the late revolt, had the natural effect, and soon produced another, which was chiefly defeated by the treachery of the Abbot of Ely, for a reason worthy of a little selfish Priest. The King had seized some Lands of that Abby, and to recover those Lands the holy Abbot betrayed his accomplices the Conspirators to the King. The Neighbouring Princes, those of Scotland and France, who knew William’s constant weakness and danger from the just disaffection of his People, were encouraged to invade his Dominions both abroad and at home; and though they committed many Insults upon

7 merit⎡cy⎤ 10 to ⎡of⎤ | returned] he returned 11 Faith,] and 12 ⎡and⎤ | every] other

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

152

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 1

his Dominions, many Ravages, amongst his People, yet he seldom obtained | competent satisfaction, or durst pursue it; from no want of bravery or spirit, but from his constant apprehensions of the Resentment and Antipathy of his People. So that being always in war with his People, or always giving them cause for War with him, he dreaded one with any neighbouring Power, and accepted any Terms of accommodation rather than risk a battle, since the loss of one might have proved fatal to him, by leaving him at the mercy of his Subjects and them to chuse their own Revenge. Had he been driven out of England, which was the least he had to fear, such loss and disgrace might have deprived him of Normandy, where, even in the then State of Things, he found many Difficulties and was so little beloved by his Subjects here, even by such of them too as were Natives of Normandy and had Estates there, that when he was there, they conspired against him here. But as it was a hasty Conspiracy ill formed and early discovered, its first efforts were easily disconcerted, and the Remains of it soon extinguished. William upon this occasion behaved as | on all such occasions, and baulked not his appetite for blood and savage vengeance. To be suspected was with him the same as to be guilty, and who could hinder him from suspecting whomsoever he disliked? So that having Criminals without number, he made them Victims without Mercy. Hanging was the mildest punishment; to be banished and starved, was reckoned a favour: Numbers perished in Prison; many had their Eyes torne out, many their feet and hands lopped off, and were left with the Burden of Life and Carcases, without any Organs to guide or support them. Though none but his Countrymen the Normans had embarked in this last Conspiracy, yet he equally extended his fury and punishments to the poor innocent English, who being wary to no purpose and without thanks, had refused to join with the Normans in it. He presumed that they had wished well to it, and upon that proof his mouth at random condemned such as his heart constantly hated; So hated that in all his Wars with his Neighbours, the poor English were constantly his forlorn Hope, always most exposed where danger and | death were most certain.

13 ⎡even by⎤ 24 favo⎡u⎤r 29 ⎡last⎤

fol. 12v

fol. 13r

fol. 13v

Of William the Norman

fol. 14r

153

The fate of Earl Walthoff at this time was both remarkable and tragical. The chief Conspirators had drawn him into their Scheme by intoxicating him with Drink, and only whilst he was in Drink he declared for them, but when sober, was so struck with remorse for engaging in a rash thing, undertaken by the Normans, and promising nothing but further Sufferings and Mischiefs to the English, that he went over to Normandy, cast himself at the King’s feet, frankly confessed all, and was as frankly pardoned by the King. Yet he was now by that very King doomed to an ignominious Death, in defiance of that very pardon; his head cut off and his body buried under the Gallows.5 Such Guilt there was in his great wealth; besides he was an English-man of prime quality, almost the only one left, and so a double Criminal in the Eyes of William the Norman whose cruelty, jealousy and avarice always helped one another: Happy People under such a King, who entertained a settled aversion to their very name and nation! He knew that they hated him, because he had brutally used them | and by his behaviour seemed determined that such cause for hate should never be removed. When he had thus lived many Years in constant apprehensions and a continual struggle; when he had destroyed a considerable part of the people, whom he had sworn to protect; when he had cut off or oppressed all their best Chiefs for being good Englishmen, such as it was his duty to have cherished, had he regarded any duty; when he had disarmed and chained and cowed all who remained, he began to think of some ease and repose to himself, without suffering them to enjoy any. After long wading in blood, he set himself to accumulate money. He erected a Commission for surveying the Kingdom and for appraising the substance of every man in it; not only his Land, but

5

10

15

20

25

21 – 22 ⎡or oppressed⎤ 5

When Sweyn II invaded Northern England in 1069, Waltheof, the first earl of Northumberland (1050–76), had sided with the Danes and taken part in the attack on York. Despite this, he had been restored to his earldom after the departure of the invaders in 1070. In 1075 he joined the Revolt of the Earls against William, though his motives for doing so are unclear, as is the extent of his involvement. However, he repented, confessing his guilt first to Archbishop Lanfranc and then in person to William, who was in Normandy at the time. Sentenced to death, he spent almost a year in confinement before being beheaded on 31 May 1076.

154

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 1

his Corn, Cattle and everything else of any the least value. All these were registered and all men exorbitantly taxed for each.6 Indeed the tax was so high and merciless that the King seemed the sole Proprietor, and the Proprietor no other than the King’s mœnial Slave, starving amidst a Stock called in derision his own. The King’s Revenue was the Revenue of the | Kingdom, and vastly heightened by Mulcts, and Fines and Confiscations, which were as numerous as he pleased; since to make any man a Criminal he needed only to pronounce him one. As a Conqueror he thought he might do all that he could do; a Doctrine which might have directed a subject how to have dealt with a Conqueror. In order to hoard such immense Treasure he spent none of it upon what might seem the most expensive Article, the maintenance of the Army, a very large one of sixty thousand men. These were all quartered upon the Estates, once of the poor English, now of the Normans who had got such Estates upon such Terms. What strange hearts and notions some men possess! This man, the worst surely in his Dominions, since none in them had it in their power to be so bad as he, thought he might sacrifice all men within them, and consequently the best men, to any of his Whims and Passions, and did so because he would. He loved Hunting, and to engross it to himself made bloody Laws for securing the Game, so bloody that whoever killed a Deer had his Eyes put out. To make Forrests for his Sport he dispeopled Countries, particularly in | Hampshire, and laid near forty Parishes at once desolate there, demolished Houses and Churches, and drove out the Inhabitants, without any retribution or amends to the miserable Proprietors.7

fol. 14v

fol. 15r

10 ⎡have⎤ direct⎡ed⎤ 11 ⎡have⎤ 20 ⎡of his⎤ 6

William’s aim in having the Domesday Book (the record of the great survey of much of England and parts of Wales, only completed in 1086) drawn up was to ascertain the taxable capacity of his kingdom and to see if more could be obtained from it. 7 The New Forest in Hampshire was originally taken over in 1079 as a deer-hunting area. Norman forest laws strictly forbade not only the hunting of game within the forest, but even the cutting of wood or the collection of fallen timber, berries, or anything else that grew in the forest. The odious Forest Law penalties for interference with the king’s deer and its food (‘browse’) were relaxed over the centuries, but a trace of the legal structure that protected the area for the Crown is still present in the New Forest in the form of the Verderers’ Court.

Of William the Norman

fol. 15v

fol. 16r

155

Was this the conduct, this the spirit of a common Father, to turn Towns and Farms, built and manured for the use and subsistence of men, into solitary Wastes, for his diversion; driving away his Christian Subjects, to make Haunts and Habitations for ravenous Beasts pestilent to property and life? Surely, of all Savages a human Savage is the worst; of all human Savages an inhuman Prince is the most hideous and devouring. His desire to have all Laws turned into the Norman Tongue, seems as much a proof of his aversion to the English, as of his partiality to the Normans. It is likely he aimed at extinguishing the name of England and the English Language for ever. The same aversion as well as partiality, led him, in Trials of property before him, to give judgment against the clearest Justice, wherever a Norman had a Suite with an Englishman. Such Conduct, against all | good Policy, as well as good Conscience, must have proceeded from most violent prejudice quite mastering his understanding. It must be likewise owned that he generally did injustice knowing it to be so: For tho’ he was a man of Parts, he was far from being a wise man. After he had by a continued course of butchery destroyed whatever provoked his angry, or allarmed his distrustful heart, and had made sacrifices without number to his rage, and not fewer to his jealousy, without ground; after he had so crushed and scared and beggared all who remained, as to have left them without means, without heart, and without hope; he now, instead of dropping the Iron-rod, for which he had no longer any pretence, much less any Use, proceeded to shew that he knew but one Rule of Government, at least over a conquered People, and that was the Rule of Oppression, to load them beyond what they could bear, to squeeze from them more than they were able to pay. He knew but one Use of a Scepter; he at least made no other use of it here, than to fell and bruise. To him it was but a weapon of war; and in his Throne he meditated Havock and destruction | as well as in the Field. He had sworn eternal hate against the English; and his course of Reigning was but a course of Revenge. Besides his constant Rage, he had an unsizeable avarice to satiate. He acted in full peace as he had done in war, with a spirit hardened and armed not only against compassion and tenderness, but against all Justice and mercy. As he had done enough to

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

156

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 1

make the English irreconcilable to him, he concluded that they would continue so, and was himself so in earnest to them. It is but the Consequence of conquest, and at least the probable character of a Conqueror. He cannot set about it without having infinite Mischiefs in view, and must therefore resolve to commit them all. He will be apt always to suspect the affections of the conquered; and, if he think that they have an aversion to Him, he will scarce love Them. A Conqueror has but two choices, to preserve all things upon the ancient foot, or to throw all into confusion and utter Ruin. Let his intention be what it will, ever so good, he must do much harm: He must chastize or | extirpate such as will not submit, and perhaps be forced at last to keep no Measures but throw the whole upside down. If they do not trust Him, he will not trust Them, but pursue his main point by whatever means prove useful to himself, however rueful to them. Few Conquerors have any Choice but the worst. They would destroy the world rather than not gratify their single Ambition. Alexander aimed not at mending the Condition of the Persians by invading and conquering Persia. Cæsar was no Benefactor to the Gauls by slaughtering a Million of them, and making Slaves of the rest: Nor was it the good of Britons that animated him to subdue Britain. With what kind views and benevolent Measures the Turks make and preserve their Conquests, appears everywhere, particularly in the Cities and Provinces of Greece and Asia once flourishing and very glorious, full of People and Arts and Politeness, now under frightful Ruins, Barbarity and Desolation. And what general Destruction follows great Conquests, is further and at least as amply shewn in those of the Spaniards in America. But of these last more presently. | Mir Magmud, Prince of the Agvans, he who at the head of these Mountaineers, conquered Persia within these twenty Years, did so fully display the Spirit and Politicks of a Conqueror, that I cannot help giving here a summary of his conduct, with that of his Suc-

fol. 16v

fol. 17r

2 ⎡himself⎤ 20 their Empire ⎡Persia⎤ 21 slaughtering] near 22 Britain⎡ons⎤ 24 ⎡everywhere, particularly⎤

Of William the Norman

fol. 17v

157

cessor; and the exemplary fate of both.8 Having first murdered his Uncle in order to succeed him in the intended Conquest, as soon as he mounted the Persian Throne, to establish himself in it, he made a general Massacre of the persian Nobility at Ispahan, of their Children, of all the principal Citizens, and of three thousand of the deposed King’s Guards, who had already sworn allegiance to the Usurper. He turned out of Ispahan its whole Inhabitants; dispersed the Inhabitants of that great Capital, many hundred thousand Souls, (a very mournful Scene!) into the remote parts of the Empire, and repeopled it with Strangers from all parts. He caused an hundred of the Royal Family to be butchered at once; and with his own hands cut in pieces three venerable ancient Princes, Brothers of the deposed Emperor. He proceeded to butcher even his own best Friends. It is | a pleasure to find that a bloody end overtook this man of blood. He was first deposed by his Followers, and his place filled by Ezroff his Cousin German, who now shed the blood of his Father’s Murderer, who was already perishing under a Palsey and his Limbs dropping off. His brain had been for some time turned, I suppose by success, as it was at first with ambition. One good thing he had done; he had begun his Reign with the Execution of those who had proved Traitors to his Predecessor. Ashraff the next Conqueror (for the conquest was not yet finished) pursued it with great success and many Triumphs, wantoning in the Spoils of that great Monarchy and over the Lives of men, sporting with the Miseries and diverting himself with Acts of fraud and cruelty. As he saw himself invested with all power, and feared nothing to check it, he was as cruel as he seemed to be secure, and played the Tyrant because he could. Having long found a series of Success, he foresaw and expected nothing else, when a terrible Re-

5

10

15

20

25

22 Ezroff ⎡Ashraff⎤ 25 – 26 ⎡fraud and⎤ 26 and ⎡and feared⎤ 28 ⎡long⎤ | nothing but ⎡a series of⎤ 8

Mahmud Ghilzai (b. 1697) was an Afghan ruler of the Hotaki dynasty who defeated and toppled the Safavid dynasty to become the king of Persia from 1722 until his death in 1725. Mahmud’s siege of Isfahan lasted from March to October 1722. In 1717 he had ousted and killed his uncle Abdul Aziz Hotak. He was succeeded by his cousin Ashraf Khan Hotaki, also known as Ashraf Ghilzai (d. 1730).

158

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 1

verse was just before him. The famous Kouli Kan (now Shash Nadir) overset all his Fortune, stripped him of his Laurels, his Crown and Life, and cut to pieces the Usurper and his so long victorious Agvans.9 | Such always is the uncertainty, such sometimes the Justice of Fortune! After all the blood shed in conquering Persia, that of the Conquerors is shed. Persia is restored, the Nation who subdued Persia almost all extirpated, and the hands of the Conquerors, so deeply dyed with the blood of Persians, are bathed in their own. Persia is subjected to a new Conqueror, one of its own Subjects, once (though a man of distinguished Birth) head of a gang of Robbers, at length Generalissimo, now Emperor of that Great Empire. He has indeed done wonders: Who knows what his End will be and that of his Race? Perhaps as wonderful as his Rise, perhaps as tragical as that of his Predecessors, though his life be certainly much more illustrious than theirs. Men know only | what is past: What is future must grow first present before it grow certain. We cannot see the issue of any step that we take. This consideration alone ought to check all Conquerors, who are under a moral certainty of doing Evil, but can have none of doing Good; and it would effectually check them were they at all influenced by just Considerations of Good and Evil. The evident short sightedness in man ought to make all men humble, and suffer none of them to be enterprizing, or too sanguine, any more than despairing. The most smiling Prosperity often Ends in Gloom and Adversity, nay often brings both. Adversity is sometime the strait Road to prosperity. How many men reap sadness from success? How many are brought by sadness into Joy? Hardly any man is so happy or unhappy as he is thought to be. One aim and pursuit is always Justifiable, that of doing Good, Good only. Were men only to have this aim, I doubt there would be an End, as of many other Evils, so particularly of Conquerors and Conquests.

fol. 18r

fol. 18v

1 him.] He soon saw himself deserted by one part of his Troops ... pride of an Emperor and a Conqueror. 1 – 4 ⎤ The famous Kouli Kan ... Agvans.⎤ 2 ⎡him⎤ 3 ⎡so⎤ 9 is ⎡are⎤ 10 – 11 [[...]] ⎡(though a man of distinguished Birth)⎤ 9

Nader Shah Afshar (1688–1747), shah of Iran (1736–47), was sometimes considered the last of the great Asian conquerors.

Of William the Norman

fol. 19r

fol. 19v

159

Kouli Kan (now a very famous | name!) makes Prince Tamas Emperor of Persia, then unmakes him;10 as he who can do the first, can and often does the second. He is himself a Mighty Potentate, a mighty Conqueror, consequently a pernicious Character. He is particularly a surprising Instance what prodigious Revolutions and Events may be produced by one great Spirit. I fear most Conquerors are in one thing alike, and in that William the Norman resembles them all, I mean in the unpardonable humour of troubling the world and destroying men, from motives altogether personal and selfish. He in particular conquered for himself, ruled for himself; and only considered England as it brought him so much power and proffit. In his first years he laid it waste by the sword; in his latter by his extortions; and from the beginning to the End, manifested a very cruel heart. Not content with having robbed great numbers of their Life, he studied how to rob all that survived of everything but Life, and so made life itself precarious or not worth keeping. His whole Reign was hostile, first killing, then plundering, as if the nation had been formed and devoted purely | to glut his sanguinary and rapacious Spirit, to bleed and starve for him. He took possession of the Kingdom as an enemy, and governed it as one to the End of his Days. In the latter part of his Reign, which was peaceable at home, the whole drift and tenour of his Councels, was how to fill his Coffers by exhausting and impoverishing his People, as if he delighted in their distress as much as in their money. He was so shameless a Robber that, when he had laid and exacted an enormous Tax, thrice heavier than the barbarous Dane-Gilt, to support him in a war with France, though no war ensued, not a penny was returned to the poor drained, abused People.

5

10

15

20

25

4 Conqueror,] and | mighty wicked Man ⎡pernicious Character⎤ 8 ⎡in⎤ 16 that ⎡life itself⎤ 10

Tahmasp II (1704?–1740) was the son of Husayn (Safavid), the shah of Iran. When Husayn was forced to abdicate by the Afghans in 1722, Prince Tahmasp tried to claim the throne. He won the support of the Sunni Muslims of the Caucasus, besides several Qizilbash tribes, including the Afshars, under the control of Iran’s future ruler, Nader Shah. In the end Tahmasp also secured recognition from both the Ottoman Empire and Russia. By 1729, Tahmasp had gained control of most of the country, but was deposed by the future Nader Shah in 1732 in favour of his son, Abbas III; both were murdered at Sabzevar in 1740 by Nader Shah’s eldest son Reza-qoli Mirza.

160

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 1

For such a course of fraud and barbarity to his Subjects, he is never to be excused, more less justified. If they were impatient under his Yoke, they had cause: They were a Free People and owned no Yoke but a voluntary Yoke. As he seized their Country by Force, he could not but expect that they would strive to defend what was so dear to them, and what he had no Right to take from them. How could he demand or even | expect obedience from Them, when they found no faith, no protection from Him? He was first and last and all along the Aggressor; and they never revolted but after notorious violation of his Oath and of all their privileges, together with shocking Insults and crying Oppression. Patience then best became him, who had driven them out of theirs, and by using them worse than Dogs, forced them to shew themselves men. He had no claim to their Country but that of violence, nor to their allegiance but that of consent, which he had gained on terms of legal protection for legal obedience. If he would not be confined to his own Terms, they were disingaged from theirs; nor had they any Rule to act by but that of self defence, whilst he observed none but that of Tyranny. All Nations and all men have a natural Right to resist an Invader, an Invader of their Liberty and Property as well as an Invader of the Soil, as Liberty and Property are more interesting than the Soil. William the Norman was both, and they had a double, indeed every motive to resist him. It was but self preservation. He who resist not a destroyer deserves to be destroyed; and whoever gives way to a Madman, | is as mad as he. As every man is mad who is under the blind, violent and continued Empire of any one passion, most Conquerors and all Tyrants who are driven headlong by an eternal tide of ambition and other impetuous Passions, are the worst sort of madmen, and only preserved from the treatment usual to their Brethren, by being more powerful than they. Love of power makes them distracted, and the possession of power maintains them in their distraction. If they do not pass for Lunaticks with the world, ’tis because most of the world are dazzled with the Lustre of their name and actions and thence see not their Lunacy. They are likewise so blind themselves as not to see that what gratifies them can be wrong, though it wastes the Globe.

25 ⎡as1⎤ | b⎡l⎤ind 30 illustrious ⎡powerful⎤ 34 ⎡thence⎤

fol. 20r

fol. 20v

Of William the Norman

fol. 21r

fol. 21v

161

William the Norman came to his Senses when ’twas too late to use them to any purpose; and Death told him the first Tydings that he believed, of his being a Usurper and an Oppressor. When that stared him in the Face, so did his past Life, and filled him with horrour. He then confessed that he had unjustly seized and violently | governed the Kingdom, that he had no Right himself and could convey none to others. Yet with all this contrition, so much selfishness remained and family-Pride, as to make him wish, that the English would think his second Son worthy to reign after him; and ’tis certain that this young Prince, though very unworthy to rule over England, was a Successor worthy of his Father.11 His repentance, however sincere, availed not his People. It proved no amends to a Nation so long and so mercilessly oppressed, to Numbers slain, and for such a Sea of irrevocable mischiefs. His liberality to Churchmen and the Poor, was but a bold attempt to bribe God to overlook the impious Breach of his sacred Trust, and for having been the scourge and executioner, instead of the protector, of his Subjects; as if by such Grimace and petty Services to mercenary Monks, he could have deceived as well as gained the Almighty and All-Wise-Being. I fear the Doctrine of Repentance ill understood, is capable of doing and hath done incredible mischief. The wickedest men, if they are but sorry when they come to dye, as all such are when they can be wicked no longer; | think themselves safe and in God’s favour by thus mocking him. What can be a greater encouragement to Sin and Wickedness, than a firm Belief that the blackest of all will be forgiven the moment they who have committed it feel compunction for it? Is it not a fresh motive for them to go on again, and for others to follow their worst example? All wickedness naturally brings difficulty, distress, and consequently fear and danger; as these certainly do concern, vexation and anxiety; impressions which will easily pass for Repentance with such as want nothing else to set their heart at rest. I question whether it be possible for a very guilty man who hath

5

10

15

20

25

30

3 ⎡an⎤ 9 third and youngest ⎡second⎤ 33 – 162,1 ⎡who hath the use of his senses,⎤ 11

He gave the duchy of Normandy to his first-born son, Robert, while his second surviving son, William, received his sceptre, sword, and crown.

162

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 1

the use of his senses, to avoid remorse, when he comes to meet Death or Punishment. So that no Criminal whatsoever need, upon this principle, fear divine wrath or can fail of favour with God and then, the consequence will be in the corrupted State of human nature, such a State as we are all more or less involved in, that no Criminal need be less so, and no man fear to be a Criminal from an apprehension of the continuance of God’s Wrath, when there is such a certain way to escape it. The same reasoning condemns that most impious fraud, the Doctrine of Absolution, where men put themselves in God’s stead, and pronounce | Pardons in his name upon Terms of their own. Will they, dare they say, that God will pardon whom they absolve, but otherwise would not pardon them; and that he will not pardon whom they do not absolve, but otherwise would pardon them? Will he not extend his mercy to those that are qualified to receive it? Will he extend it to such as are not so qualified? To deny it to the former is impossible to an all good Being, and worthy of the worst Being: To grant it to the unqualified, is unsuitable either to divine Wisdom or divine Justice. And can any human Creature inform the Deity, who are the proper Objects of his Mercy, who of his Wrath? Or is it suitable to unerring Omnipotence to transfer his Powers and Attributes to any of his Creatures subject to endless Frailties and Follies? What else is a Confessioner’s Chair but an Office for bestowing Divine Graces, which nothing but Omnipotence can bestow? Yet many believe in Impostors who usurp that Omnipotence and the sacrilegious disposal of those divine Graces: Nor is it their fault if Criminals be not multiplied in the World, and the worst Crimes become still blacker, when here are such holy encouragements for both; when every Sin bears a Price, and every Price paid is attended with a | Pardon; when Acts of Contrition are taught by book, and every Ecclesiastic stands for a Vice-God and Sole-Pardoner. In this Absolution and in these Absolvers the most hideous Transgressors trust; and trust not in vain, let them be ever so hideous. There is but one Impediment; and that is the disobedience to the Directors of their conscience or to such as direct the Directors; an impediment rarely chargeable upon guilty and despairing

2 – 3 ⎡upon this principle, [[...]] fear to divine wrath⎤ 23 ⎡bestowing Divine⎤ 25 ⎡in⎤

fol. 22r

fol. 22v

Of William the Norman

fol. 23r

fol. 23v

163

Bigots. No impediment arises from the magnitude or Repetition of their guilt, be it that of the blackest Frauds, of a thousand Murders, or of a whole life drenched with blood and violence. The most wicked of men are Princes that are wicked. Yet was ever the wickedest of all Princes, refused absolution if he proved but pious, that is bigotted and bountiful towards the Absolvers? Nay his worst Crimes, his Rapine and Tyranny are imputed to him for merit, if they be but exercised towards such as offend the Absolvers by having more reason and better Morals than they. William the Norman therefore, though the greatest Oppressor, and consequently the | greatest Sinner upon Earth (for as men cannot hurt God, their greatest offence against him who made them all, is to hurt one another) could not fail of being completely absolved, especially having so piously purchased it by his bounty to the Society of Absolvers. If there can be possibly upon Earth greater criminals than Tyrants and Oppressors, they must be those who thus encourage such; and every black action is the blacker and more shocking when done in the high and holy name of God. If after all this account of William the Norman be true, and I aver I have not aggravated, much less made any one Fact, it appears wonderful that such a barbarous Prince should find any Advocates; the wonder ceases when it is remembered that the Monks were then the Historians and consequently his Historians, Authors who have hardly ever failed to represent things according to the tenor and measure of their own Bigotry, and men according to that of their Bounty or Contempt towards Monks and Monastries. Hence it is that they are frequently found abusing the best and the wisest, extolling the worst and the foolishest men; sanctifying | Oppression where they share with the Oppressor, traducing public Spirit wherever public Spirit interfered with the interest of the Monks; though where it did not, it deserved not that name. I am sorry to mention so fine an Author as Virgil after such wretched ones as the Monks. But the Cases are somewhat like. That very charming, but very flattering Poet celebrates Augustus as a God,

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 the] number or | ⎡or Repetition⎤ 2 ⎡of2⎤ 3 ⎡of⎤ 28 ⎡the2⎤ 29 ⎡the2⎤ 34 they ⎡the Monks⎤

164

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 1

for having restored him his Farm: And by such bounty the Emperor was certainly a Benefactor to Virgil. But what was Augustus to all Virgil’s Neighbours whose Lands he had taken from them by violence and never restored? Was he not as much a Tyrant and Spoiler to them as he was a Deity to Virgil? William of Malmesbury, Ingulphus of Croyland, and other Authors, who have written about him, were all preferred by him, were all Foreigners and therefore not overfond of English Men, who in their Turn could not be fond of Them, especially when they saw such carry away their Birth-right, with all countenance and preferment. Besides these Monks and Churchmen, though not | such fine Authors as Virgil, loved Riches and Favour as well as he, and could flatter as grossly. Yet even from these may be learned what an oppressive, what a barbarous Reign his was. The very Monks, who rarely make or know any other difference between good and evil but as it affects their own narrow Interests, and therefore often extoll the worst men, often curse and revile the best, could not dissemble his vehement Enmity to the English and the lawless outrages of his Administration. How indeed could he be justified or excused, he who had not the Shadow of a Title, but consent gained by violence and fear; he who broke all faith, trampled upon all Law, exercised every Cruelty, treated his Subjects as Slaves and Aliens, and acted like their Executioner? His boldness in Council, his Courage in the Field, his Vigilance and Activity, the great Qualities for which he was extolled, cannot be called good, when they were continually applied to do Evil. He was resolute to enslave, active to oppress and destroy, circumspect to deceive. He was in fact a stern, coarse, false man, | possessed of great power and thence chiefly attended with Success, which always produces Flatterers. In his undertaking there was much more rashness than sound design. One defeat, of which there was great probability, might have utterly buffled it; or even after his Victory, one Siege of a

fol. 24r

fol. 24v

1 [[...]] ⎡by such bounty⎤ 2 ⎡what⎤ 4 ⎡Tyrant and⎤ 5 would be ⎡was⎤ 6 ⎤ William of Malmesbury. Ingulphus of Croyden ⎤ | Croyden-⎡land⎤ 13 ⎤ [[...]] Thomas Becket [[...]] to Henry 2d and [[...]] distinction in [[...]] of honouring him as King, but correcting as his Spiritual [[...]] 229. ⎤ | oppressive,] and 19 ⎡be⎤ 21 [[...]] ⎡trampled⎤ 25 extolled,] [[...]]

Of William the Norman

fol. 25r

fol. 25v

165

few Months, might have made his Victory useless: In either Case he might have seen his Forces dissipated, and himself a Prisoner, or perhaps a Martyr to his own violence and folly. I can see no Traces of great Policy in him, any more than of Politeness and Humanity, which are the constituent Parts of every great Politician and of every great Man. He had Luck, and from thence a great name. From him England has derived a new Era; and William the Conqueror has a mighty sound: So have Earthquakes, Conflagrations, Hurricanes, Plagues, Tempests; all dreadful Calamities, but dumb and unmeaning, therefore less to be abhorred than he. No Conqueror is otherwise excusable than as he is a benefactor to the conquered. Constant Tyranny, Massacre, Famine and | Desolation followed the Norman Conquest; as Misery, Murder, and expulsion did the conquered; and as eternal Reproach and Detestation ought to do the Conqueror. I shall conclude this Reign with some further Observations upon Conquerors in general. The Scythians told Alexander the Great, that such as he conquered could never love him: No Slave can love the man who makes him one. Therefore the Right of making War continued even during Peace. A Nation to be thoroughly conquered, must be thoroughly enslaved to secure the Conquest; the bravest men slain or banished; the rest dispirited and disarmed. What renders them unable to resist the Conqueror, renders them likewise unable to assist him, were they even willing, which ’tis hard to suppose. They therefore become often a burden to their Master, who to preserve himself from them, and them from another Invader, must, to secure and defend them, beat a charge sometimes equal to what he draws from them, yet feel the constant uneasiness to think how ready they are to | submit to a new Master, as well as unfit to help their present Master, or protect themselves. He who subdues a Nation, as, in order to it, he must weaken and impoverish and enslave it, will by doing all this, in all probability, find what he has thus gained with so much labour and danger, and blood and guilt and expence, not worth keeping. His first attempt

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2 – 3 ⎡perhaps⎤ 18 him];: | him ⎡the man⎤ 21 ⎤ On the condition of the Americans under the Spaniards in [[...]] ⎤

166

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 1

and preparations will have cost him a great Deal more to gratify his Followers and Assistants. By the Maxims of a Conqueror he is obliged never to suffer the conquered to recover strength, nor riches; since though he affect to encourage wealth, as it will be all or chiefly intended for himself under divers names and pretences, taxes, contributions, aids, loans, and public safety, there will ever be wanting that natural and voluntary Industry which is so absolutely necessary to produce wealth. What do all the Treasures of Mexico and Peru avail to the Mexicans and Peruvians? are they not miserable Slaves, scattered and poor? Indeed what do all these immense Treasures avail the Spaniards, proud of such conquered Empires and such Treasures, | yet so poor and impotent with them? These American States were once populous, powerful, capable of exerting infinite Industry, and performing mighty and wonderful Works, and Wealthy beyond all the rest of the World. The Spaniards conquered them chiefly by Artillery and superior Tricks in War and Treachery, and in a good Measure by their Mastifs (natural Allies to such bloody men), yet so little has such immense Wealth and such grand and imperial acquisitions, profited Spain, that it hath been long and is at this Day the most desolate, bloodless and contemptible great Nation in the World. A just Consequence, as well as a Curse upon such wicked Conquests. The Spaniards had no occasion, as a Nation, to subdue America, nor will they even subdue it intirely. Instead of throwing away so many of their own Lives, and butchering so many Millions of the Natives (mostly in cold blood), more perhaps than there are in all Europe, if they had only made Settlements and Forts upon the Coasts, used the Americans kindly and kept their faith punctually with them, they might have drawn from them by Commerce, with Justice and their own consent, more wealth than ever they could gain by | spoil and barbarity. They would then have reaped yearly the wealth of those populous Empires, by degrees, even that of Montezuma and Ataliba, the Mines ready worked to their hands, and the

6 and ⎡aids,⎤ 15 Works,] [[...]] 19 impartial⎡erial⎤ 26 most⎡ly⎤

fol. 26r

fol. 26v

Of William the Norman

fol. 27r

12

167

Gold and Silver flowing spontaneously into their Ships.12 By destroying those two great Monarchs at once, instantly to glut insatiate avarice, what made them insatiably cruel, and detestably perfidious, they turned those glorious and mighty Regions (almost half the Globe) into a Desart, exhausted Spain, stopped up for ever all the regular Sources of Riches, and with everlasting infamy reaped poverty and impotence in pursuit of wealth. Such an immense Trade would have supported Spain in the Empire of the Seas, and the native Americans finding upon repeated Trials that these Strangers aimed not at their Country, but only at the produce of it for an Equivalent in European Commodities, would willingly have parted with their Silver and Gold for Commodities which they wanted more, as freely as the East Indians do with their Spices and other productions to such as sail thither for them. What Losses and consequently what Weakness, did not the Romans first, then the | Saxons, then the Danes, sustain in the Conquest of England! After all these had held it in their Turns several Ages, with advantages not equal to their Losses, they lost it finally to the Normans, as they had successively to one another. The Romans lost many Successive Armies to gain and keep it. Such Losses helped to bring on the Decay and Dissolution of the Empire. ’Tis the Case of all Conquerors as well as of the Romans, first made great, at last undone, by their Conquests. The Turk is weakning and ruining himself every Day to keep the Conquests made by the Turks, and will consequently lose them all, in all probability not long hence. The Saxons in Germany greatly hurt and thinned their Nation at home to support their Settlements in England, by sending thither so many of their bravest Troops and youngest People. The Danes suffered so much at home by their continual Wars, Pyracies, and their Conquest here, that their Country does not seem to have recruited itself ever since in a course of a thousand Years, nor ever will, as Spain certainly

5

10

15

20

25

30

Montezuma (c. 1466–1520) was the ninth ruler of the Aztec empire. In his reign, which lasted from 1502 to 1520, the first contact occurred between the indigenous civilizations of Mesoamerica and Europeans. He was killed during the early stages of the Spanish conquest of Mexico, when Conquistador Hernán Cortés and his men fought their way out of Tenochtitlán, the Aztec capital. Atahualpa (Ataliba) (1497–1533) was the last sovereign emperor of the Tahuantinsuyu, or the Inca empire. He was captured by the Spaniard Francisco Pizarro and used as an instrument for controlling the Inca empire. Eventually, the Spanish executed Atahualpa by garrotte.

168

5

10

15

20

Chapter 1

never will recover her infinite Losses by her Conquests. It is even probable that Philip the 2d would not have lost the Low Countries, of more substantial value to him than his boasted Indies, had not the pride of his mighty | wealth there made him vainly imagine that nothing was too high or too mighty for his power and Revenues to subdue. From the same fallacious Dependence, he aimed at the Conquest of England, which without his reliance upon the Indies, he could never have projected with such infinite expence and parade. That attempt and his Wars to reduce the Dutch, sunk the power of Spain so low, that not the wealth of the American World, nor the space of near two Centuries have been able, never will be able to retrieve it. Ireland was conquered with surprising ease before it had hardly seen or felt the Forces from England; but it cost much blood and Treasure, incessant struggles, infinite Wars and Danger to secure it; so much and so many, that the best Judges think it a misfortune to England that there ever was such an Island as Ireland. It was conquered in a Year or two, but not subdued in many Centuries. The Natives are still seven Times more numerous than the Britons their Masters, still enemies in their hearts, still disposed to shed the blood of their Subduers.

18 but] was 19 still] more than

fol. 27v

Chapter 2

The Reign of William the 2d Sirnamed Rufus fol. 29r

fol. 29v

14 and] to

William the Norman took the only method that he could take to make himself regretted, by recommending his second Son to the Crown; a Son who had all his Father’s Fierceness and Brutality; with less Art and Circumspection: But without enquiring into his Father’s Motives and Views, it was at least his last Care to have him sent over to England, and proper Measures taken there for his Establishment. A candidate for a Kingdom is not to be supposed either an idle or an uncourtly Person. Mighty Efforts were made for him; mighty Things were promised in his Name; to the English ‘an utter End of all their Hardships’: The young Prince was resolved to ‘release them from all Burdens’, resolved to ‘avoid the harsh Proceedings of his Father, and banish all Oppression’; to the Normans, ‘a Confirmation of all their Rights and Acquisitions’, by a Prince, who like Them, deriving all from the Bounty | of the Conqueror, ‘would not fail to support Them, as he must depend upon Them to support Him’. Besides he was immediately put in possession of his Father’s Treasure, and of the strong Holds, and, in a few Days after, of the Throne. Robert his eldest Brother was in Normandy, had few Friends in England, and was every where, as well as every way, unprepared. He had provoked his Father by a Revolt, and, through Mistake, very nigh killed him in the Field; for which, though he felt and expressed

5

10

15

20

170

5

10

15

20

25

30

1

Chapter 2

infinite Compunction, he fell under his Wrath and a bitter Curse, and could never recover his Favour. As he was generous and mild, he would probably have used the English well; a contemptible Character and Consideration to a Father of such opposite Spirit and Politicks. A rough Ruler void of Bowels, like William the second, was the most genuine Successor of William the first; though destitute of all Merit but that of being royally Born; which is always a Scandal, where there is no other Merit. His best Claim to a | Crown was that he had got one; since a Crown is a certain Disgrace to him who wears it to the Hurt of his People. What Courage he had, is no more to be commended than that of any furious Quadruped; since he made the same furious Use of his Power, to spoil, kill and destroy, nay worse Use, as he did all this without the Call and Excuse of hunger. It was Lucky for him that he was a King, before it was known, that he had not one Talent fit for any good Employment, but every Talent unfit for Reigning. It was another great Advantage to him, that the Attempt of his Brother Robert to dethrone him, was made so soon, before he had Time to shew how much he deserved to be dethroned. Till that Attempt was defeated, he hid his Heart; a pitch of cunning common to other hurtful Creatures much lower than Man. He had at first assumed a gracious Face, and by it deceived the People into a Belief that it was natural: It was easy as well as necessary to continue it, when he saw himself attacked and in Danger. He therefore, in suppressing this Conspiracy, shewed no want of Address, no more than of activity and resolution. The | Moment the Danger was over, so was his fair Behaviour; nature resumed her Sway, and he gave full Carreer to all his ravening Passions. It was not owing to himself, that he had suppressed them so long, but in a great Measure to the Authority and wise Advice of Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury, one of the worthiest that ever filled that or any other See.1

fol. 30r

fol. 30v

Lanfranc rendered his greatest political service to William in 1075, when he found out about and foiled the conspiracy hatched by the earls of Norfolk and Hereford. On the death of the Conqueror in 1087, Lanfranc secured the succession for William Rufus, despite ill-feeling amongst the Anglo-Norman baronage; and in 1088, he managed to persuade the English militia to fight with the new king against Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, and other supporters of the Con-

The Reign of William II

fol. 31r

fol. 31v

171

The English, who had stood firmly by him against the Efforts of his Brother, hoped for an easy Reign under a Prince, who reigned by their partiality and Services; and they were still so well disposed towards him, that he might have obliged them by only forbearing to oppress them, and by discontinuing some late Oppressions, of which there was great Variety. Rufus, who considered his People as a Prodigal doth his Fortune, given him only for Waste and Sport, and his Kingdom, not as a Trust, but as a Source of Riot, and a Scene of Wantonness, began, without a Pause, to use the English like Beasts of Burden, and to loud them beyond what they could bear: As if a great Nation were | formed only to glut the Appetites of a coarse Man, who, except his fine Name, was as low as the grossest Boor in it, and infinitely more hurtful and contemptible. Who should be so humane as a King? who so just? And what a dreadful Calamity is a King who proves inhuman and unjust? The Calamity is still more dreadful when two or more such Kings succeed one another. This was the Calamity of England under the two Williams. The great and constant Drift of their Politicks, after they had once secured themselves, was to drain and fleece the People: Contemptible Politicks, as well as horrible, and though altogether selfish, yet not selfish enough. Oppressive Princes are Enemies to their own Interest; since the Strength and true Riches of a Prince, as well as his true Glory, are to be found in the Wealth and Happiness of his People. Every Prince of sound Sense will, out of Regard to himself, regard his People; and whoever wants good Sense and Humanity, is, of all Offices, most unfit for that of a Prince. Rufus, with all the unfeeling and rapacious Temper of his Father, had not equal Ability: He oppressed only to waste, as the other had to hoard. His endless Prodigality begot endless | Rapine, and he cared not though his People groaned and perished, so he could but riot; a rare Qualification for Reigning, such a one as Rufus signally possessed! He was excellent at inverting the Duty of a public Father, and applied himself with Success to strip and starve his People. Upon

5

10

15

20

25

30

6 Choice ⎡Variety⎤ 23 the] [[...]] 24 will,] even queror’s eldest son, Duke Robert Curthose. He secured promises of just government from Rufus, and did not shy away from expressing criticism when these were not fulfilled.

172

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 2

this paternal Use of his Power, he bestowed constant Assiduity and Counsel. He regarded their Wailings and Complaints so little that he was in a Rage with honest Lanfranc for speaking in their behalf, and reminding him of his Engagement to them: He asked the good Archbishop, with a Tone of Fierceness and Wonder, ‘whether it was possible for a King to keep his Promises?’ In this he shewed what a Notion he had of Kings and Promises. He thought, as he made plain by his Words as well as Actions, that no Conditions, no Promises ought to bind a King, even such Promises and Conditions as procure him a Crown, and without which He could not have procured His. Upon such Conditions he had gained his from the English. Had he a Right | to their Gift, and they none to the Conditions and the fulfilling of his Engagements? What pretence had he to their Allegiance, when he thus denied them justice, that Justice which is as much due to the People, as the Allegiance of the People is due to the Crown? How would he have liked to have been asked, whether he expected that the People should keep their Engagements to their Sovereign, especially if they had just been stripping Him of his Revenue and Prerogative, of that very Revenue and Prerogative, that They had as much bound themselves to maintain, as He had bound himself to maintain Them in their Rights and Properties, these very Rights and Properties, which he was now daily violating and seizing without Shame and without Measure? Rufus ruled by Appetite, and a ravenous one he had, too gross for the golden Rule and the Voice of Reason. So good a Counsellor as Lanfranc could not be long about such a barbarous Prince. Finding from his best Advice no other Effect than Fury and coarse Usage, he retired, and not long after died, probably of Grief, to see the Sovereignty so brutally swayed by one whom he himself had, in a great Measure, made Sovereign, | by his great Credit with the People, whom he now saw him oppress against all Ties and Promises, as well as against all Law and Mercy. After his Departure, to be sure the King did not grow better, and indeed seemed incapable of any amendment whatsoever. He who was a Tyrant under the best Minister, did but improve in Tyranny without him. Besides the boundless Plunder of his Lay Subjects, he

13 And wWhat 26 Langfranc

fol. 32r

fol. 32v

The Reign of William II

fol. 33r

fol. 33v

2

173

made large and mighty Spoil upon the Clergy, with no view to ease the Laity, his best and only, though no lawful Excuse. His whole view in spoiling both, was the low Gratification of his own worst Passions. He seized into his own hands as fast as they fell, so many Bishopricks and rich Benefices, that, for a Layman, he was the greatest Pluralist, that ever the Kingdom saw, or the Clergy censured. Besides he held them all, as They do, without Limitation of Time, or account of Profits, or even without sparing the Archbishoprick of Canterbury. It is not therefore likely that other and lower | great Benefices, if they were but profitable, escaped him. He kept them long, some times for Years together, in his own Hands; and when by frequently receiving their Rents, he came to know their value, he sold them to the best Bidder, encouraging Simony as well as practising Sacrilege. Besides that, before he parted with any of them, he always appropriated to himself all the valuable Effects and Moveables belonging to them, and turned the same into Money. Under all this Robbery, the loud Cries of the Clergy could bring them no Aid or Protection from Rome, as there then happened to be a plurality of infallible Heads, each asserting his own infallibility and divine Vicarship, and cursing his Competitors with all their Adherents: Nor was it possible, between these holy Wranglers, to distinguish the true unerring Headship, which pronounced Curses and Decisions most authentically.2 As the Clergy under the worst Oppressors fare as well, generally better than the other Subjects, we may guess from such heavy Sufferings in the Clergy, how severe must have been those of the Laity. | Yet Rufus, with all his Severity to Churchmen, was himself a Votary to the Church, and far from disbelieving the prevailing System of Faith, though an Enemy to Morality, and a daily profaner of all Laws and Duties human and divine. How unaccountable are such Men, unless they hope to cancel all, and conciliate the divine Favour

5

10

15

20

25

30

Pope Urban II (c. 1035–1099), born Odo de Lagery, was pope from 12 March 1088 until his death on 29 July 1099. He is best known for having initiated the First Crusade (1096–99) and for establishing the modern Roman Curia as a kind of royal court. At the beginning of his papacy, he faced opposition from the powerful antipope Clement III (Guibert, archbishop of Ravenna), who was elected pope by the Roman clergy and people. Gradually, however, Urban was able to consolidate his position through skilful diplomacy.

174

5

10

15

20

25

30

(a)

Chapter 2

by Starts of Repentance and frequent Absolution? What Enormities such a wild Conjecture and such a palliating Expedient must produce, is easier conceived than explained, and I have before given my Sentiments upon this Subject!(a) ’Tis certain that as often as the blackest Sins are absolved, so often are the blackest Sinners encouraged to commit more. If Men were persuaded that God never forgave such as offended afresh, they would hardly offend so often as when they are persuaded that every such Offence will be easily forgiven. William Rufus was seized with such a Fit of sickness as he thought fatal; and repenting of his past Violences, resolved to tyrannize no longer, when he was | no longer able to tyrannize. But as it was Sickness only that made him renounce his Tyranny, he resumed his Tyranny when Sickness left him, and of all his fair pious Promises performed not one, but revoked every just Concession, which, out of fear, not out of Justice, he had made. His Orders for releasing such as he had wantonly imprisoned, for relieving those whom he had cruelly oppressed, for making retribution where he had committed spoil, for repairing injured Innocence and Honour, and for healing the Breaches which his continual Violences had made, were all recalled as fast as they had been made; and all the poor Sufferers were doomed to suffer the more for having been destined to ease and relief. The Iron Rod grew heavier and sharper than ever; Oppression walked bare faced, and Poverty followed it. Riches, however moderate, were a Crime to be cancelled only by seizing them; and Conscience was a Mark of Disaffection. Informers, Schemers of Rapine and Violence, with such Fellows of the most abandoned Principles and vilest Morals, were the only Men in fashion at Court and in favour with the King. Justice was exposed to price; and the only way to make a | Fortune was to contrive the Ruin of that of Thousands. The Tyranny was indeed so frightful and unbearable, that Numbers of the best Subjects had determined to forsake their forlorn and desperate Country, hoping for less barbarity abroad then in their native Soil, and more gracious Usage from any Sovereign than from their

In the Reign of the Conqueror.

12 ⎡as⎤ 16 fear,] and 17 for] the good [[...]] of 22 ⎡were⎤ 23 iIron 32 ⎡had⎤

fol. 34r

fol. 34v

The Reign of William II

fol. 35r

fol. 35v

23 Folly];:

175

own. But even this Liberty, which they thought unalienable, though very mournful, Rufus who had robbed them of all other, cruelly denied them; as if it were Part of his Sovereignty to see them perish under it, rather than suffer them to seek Relief elsewhere from it. He would not part even with their Misery and Carcases, the only property which he had left them. Rufus was just such a Brother as he was a King, without Bowels or natural Affection: He ravened after the Fortune and Property of his Brothers as eagerly as after those of his Subjects, whilst they had any left. Not content with snatching the Throne from the eldest Brother Robert, he tried by force and surprize to rob him even of Normandy. | The poor Duke thus distressed and unprepared, had recourse to the French King for Assistance; and the French King, agreeably to good Policy, came, even in person, to this Aid; but like a very bad Politician, as well as a scandalous Ally, soon forsook him. A Sum of money from Rufus proved too powerful both for his honour and interest, and kept him from perceiving that no Sum whatsoever could be so beneficial, as the Conjunction of England and Normandy under one head, must be dangerous and detrimental to the Crown of France. The Peace which soon followed between the two Brothers, partly from Duke Robert’s good Nature, partly from William’s want of Success, could not but amply shew the French King his late great Folly: For by the concluding Article, ‘when either of the two Brothers died, the Survivor was to succeed to his whole Dominions’, and consequently must become so much stronger for France. From what we have seen of William Rufus, it must be owned but natural in him to wonder, as he did, that, in a war between his two Brothers, Robert having it in his Power to have starved Henry, by depriving him of Water, was yet humane enough to let him be supplied. | Robert excusing it to William, who upbraided him with being so weak as to shew mercy to their common Brother, by this Excuse of brotherly Tenderness, so provoked the King, that in a great

5

10

15

20

25

30

176

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 2

Passion he left assisting Him, as he had done before, and sailed for England.3 Evil Doings seldom fail to be followed by proper and vexatious consequences, and evil Doers have always more Cause of Regret than of Joy, how differently so ever they may reckon. Rufus, besides the infamy of his faithless Attack upon his Brother Robert, besides his painful Jealousie of that Brother, whom he justly provoked to be his Enemy, insomuch that he was at once hated and despised, and proportionably uneasie and unhappy, had by his Expedition to usurp another Prince’s Country, left his own exposed to the Insults and Ravages of the Scottish King. Nor with all his mighty Preparations was he able to vindicate the Honour of the Nation and his own Honour. His great Fleet, sent to destroy the Coasts of Scotland, was itself | destroyed in a Tempest: His great Army, led to invade Scotland, was lost or found Useless in unhospitable Bogs and Mountains, and spent by cold and want, and laborious Marches. The whole probably would have perished, had not Peace forthwith been made; a very seasonable Peace to Rufus, and not ungrateful to Malcolm the Scottish King. In making it, the Duke of Normandy had a principal Hand: He had been brought over by the King his Brother under colour of wanting him to conduct the War, in reallity out of Fear of leaving him behind after such Provocation given him.4 Yet with all this Merit in Robert, after so many Wrongs done him, and notwithstanding the great Ease and Credit, and many Advantages which would have accrued to the King from doing him Justice, the King, never a Changeling, but constant to fraud and viol-

fol. 36r

11 Scot⎡ti⎤csh 17 no ⎡not⎤ 3

In William of Malmesbury’s Gesta regum Anglorum, this episode is reported as having taken place during the siege of Mont-Saint-Michel. 4 In May 1091, Malcolm III marched south to lay siege to Newcastle, which had been built by Robert Curthose in 1080, in what appears to have been an attempt to push the frontier south from the River Tweed to the River Tees. The threat was serious enough to bring the English king back from Normandy, where he had been fighting Robert Curthose. In September, with William Rufus’s army approaching, Malcolm withdrew north and the English followed in pursuit. A few days before Michaelmas (29 September), events turned in the Scots’ favor when almost all of William’s ships were wrecked. Malcolm was willing to take on the English forces, but a peace was arranged by Edgar Ætheling and Robert Curthose. Its terms required Malcolm to acknowledge the overlordship of the English king, as he had the Conqueror in 1072.

The Reign of William II

fol. 36v

fol. 37r

ence, still amused, still cheated his Brother, and would never perform any one Article stipulated in his Favour by their late Treaty. Robert therefore returned in just Wrath to Normandy, where William, now in Peace with Scotland, saw no Reason to fear him. But finding that the Duke was making Preparations there, with Design, he supposed, to retake by Force | the Places which ought by Treaty to have been given up to him; he, who had not Faith to observe any Treaty, nor Justice to restore to any Man his most apparent Property, leads an Army into Normandy to rob his Brother of all instead of restoring him any part. He first hoped to cheat him at an Interview, nay afterwards tried another Interview with the same Design. Not succeeding in fraud, he began open Violence. Robert, assisted by French Troops, proved too hard for him, and had considerable Success against him. William, who saw the Cause of such superiority, and had before experienced the French King’s Avarice to be stronger than his Policy, resolved to try the same Expedient as formerly. The Difficulty was how to find Money: As he had squeezed from his Subjects almost all that they had, he thought of a Cheat that supplied him. He ordered twenty Thousand Men to be levied in England, as for Normandy; and when they seemed just going to embark, he let them all be discharged | upon paying him ten Shillings a Man: This Money the French King took to withdraw his Aid from Robert, though it was no better than a Bribe to weaken himself.5 William now swallowed in Prospect his Brother’s whole Dominions, and would have swallowed them in Earnest, but that to his great Anguish, he was called suddenly home to oppose some Allarms and Hostilities from Wales: His Vengeance against the Welsh was not found very dreadful, much less fatal, though he twice invaded them. He was indeed diverted by a new Danger, partly of his own creating. He had by his imperious and faithless Behaviour to Malcolm King of Scots, provoked him to ravage the northern Counties afresh: Nor was it by any Power or Policy of William’s that the Enemy were restrained and his People there protected. A brave and able Subject, Robert de Mowbray, Governor of the English Marches,

28 ⎡found very⎤ 5

177

John of Worcester stated that this episode occurred at Hastings.

5

10

15

20

25

30

178

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 2

raised a sudden Force, and surprizing the Invaders, so totally routed them, that their King and his eldest Son were slain. The brave Mowbray might possibly overrate this Exploit; but the King hardly could, | great, seasonable and decisive as it was. Gratitude, which is the perfection and trial of generosity and friendship, could not be found in a Prince famous for want of both. Mowbray’s Merit was neglected, He perhaps hated for having it, and perhaps nearer to utter Ruin than to any Reward. He, therefore, whether from Fear or Resentment, formed a Conspiracy against a Prince who, with so many brutal, had not one princely Quality.6 What defeats almost all Conspiracies, defeated this, the infidelity of one of the Conspirators. A very few Persons cannot accomplish a Conspiracy; and amongst many, ’tis great Odds but some are false. But for the secret Information of Gilbert de Tunbridge, William would have been a Prisoner; nor would the Want of his Liberty have been long unfollowed by that of his Crown: His life too would probably have gone with his Crown. Under such a Prince as Rufus may be easily guessed the Consequence of a Conspiracy discovered. ’Tis but good | Policy to punish some Conspirators; the wisest Princes do it, and the best must. Of all that were accused William spared not one, not even such as loudly avowed their Innocence to the last Gasp. As his Thirst for money was rather more vehement than for blood, he took the Money where he could not have both. But he had also cruel Spectacles to please him, Executions, Mangling and Torture, Eyes pulled out, Limbs torne off, etc. William never enjoyed Quiet, and was indeed for the most part the chief Author of his own Disquiet. Anselm the then Archbishop of Canterbury, one very different from the good Lanfranc, but much

fol. 37v

fol. 38r

1 surprized⎡ing⎤ 23 whe⎡re⎤ 24 Spectacles] [[...]] 6

When, in November 1093, Malcolm III of Scotland invaded Northumbria for the second time since 1091, attacking Alnwick, Robert de Mowbray (d. 1125) raised an army and moved against him. On 13 November (St Brice’s Day), he took the Scots by surprise, and in the ensuing conflict, known as the Battle of Alnwick, Malcolm and his son Edward were killed. But as a result of his role in the conspiracy of 1095, Mowbray forfeited his estates and was imprisoned for life, initially in Windsor Castle.

The Reign of William II

fol. 38v

fol. 39r

179

fitter to deal with Rufus, plagued and perplexed him exceedingly.7 The King set the Immunities of the Church too low; the Archbishop set them too high. There was great room for blaming the King for trampling upon the Rights of the Clergy; but the Archbishop was at least as unjust in setting himself and his Pretensions above the Law. It was of great Consequence to the Kingdom and Crown of England, that the Clergy should own no Pope, ’till the King gave them leave, and owned him first himself. | Besides the Law was clear and positive to that purpose. The Archbishop who professed to defy all Laws that meddled with Things Ecclesiastical, which in the clerical Stile, generally mean things universal, had in spight of Law and the King’s Authority owned Urban the 2d for Pope. This was assuming to himself a papal Power here, and doing in truth an Act of Papacy; since by the Word out of his Mouth, the whole English Church and Clergy were to be concluded, the Royal Authority set at nought, and the Law abolished; a Claim of Infallibility and spiritual Supremacy as high as those of Rome. It is to be observed, that though no temporal Power or Laws could at all bind or confine the Clergy, yet their spiritual Power or Laws extended, with equal Force, and without exception, to the whole Laity. Spiritual Power, unless it contain and can command the secular, is a meer Fantom, and therefore means all Power whatsoever, only covered with a curious subdolous Name. | So that where the Clergy have their full sway, there can be no such thing as civil Government: Where Civil Government is exerted to the full, there can be no spiritual Government. All Government is imperfect which cannot do all Things. A Government half or partly supreme, is a Monster, unable to protect itself, much more to afford Protection. Two supreme Governments in the same Society, are two Monsters, which must destroy one another, or

5

10

15

20

25

30

23 subdol⎡o⎤us 24 can] possibly 26 spiritu⎡a⎤l 29 – 30 ⎡in the same Society,⎤ 7

After Lanfranc’s death, the king put off appointing a new archbishop, appropriating ecclesiastical revenues in the interim, which lasted for many years. But a serious illness in 1093 prompted William to hastily give the post to Anselm (c. 1033–1109), another Norman-Italian, regarded as the greatest theologian of his generation. However, Anselm was more strongly in favour of Gregorian reforms in the Church than Lanfranc had been, and this led to long-running tensions between the Church and the State.

180

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 2

be both destroyed. All Powers that own the Pope must be imperfect, or the Pope must make his own power so, in order to bring Them to own Him. They cannot be both absolute about the same Thing. They therefore make strange jugling Bargains, such as can never be clear nor certain, but are subject to eternal Evasions and Wrangling: The King, for instance, nominates to a spiritual Benefice or Dignity, and the Pope chuses. The Pope allows not the King to judge of spiritual Persons: Yet the King obliges the Pope to approve whom he nominates. Yet Nomination, which is in effect chusing, is not supposed to interfere with the Pope’s Right to chuse. So that here Force and Choice, absolute Necessity and absolute Freedom, Right and the want of | Right, Power and no Power, signify all one and the same Thing. Now, were all this Contradiction and Inconsistency confined to Words and Speculations, to Distinctions and Chimeras, they might subsist as long as Deceit and Ignorance subsist. But as Essentials are concerned, no less than Jurisdiction and Property, Things so tender and interesting, such Grimace and Juggling between the Pope and the Popish Sovereign cannot last for ever. The one Power must in Time shake off the other, or be shaken off by it. Which side is in most danger, his Holiness, or the States who yet own the Supremacy of his Holiness, seems in our Days to grow plainer and plainer. By the Law of England, during a Competition and plurality of Popes, the King was to chuse his own, or by parity of Reason none, if he liked none;8 which last Choice would have always been the best, since all Popes were Enemies to all Kings, by claiming Supremacy over all; a Claim which in Effect degraded | all Kings, and set up the Pope as universal King. How absurd and impudent, how ridiculous as well as diabolical, this Claim was, is clear to all who dare to use their Reason and Eyesight; and to such who dare not, neither Demonstration nor Daylight will minister Conviction. Who but those who are drunk with Delusion can comprehend, that an old Friar bred in a Cell, full of Passion, Ignorance and Infirmities, nay chosen for his Infirmities, and chosen to reign chiefly because his Reign is like to be short,

2 ⎡power⎤ 5 ⎡are⎤ 8

See Douglas, William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact Upon England, pp. 342–43.

fol. 39v

fol. 40r

The Reign of William II

fol. 40v

fol. 41r

181

should by the Virtue of an awkward Diadem, made and given him by human Hands, immediately grasp celestial Thunder, with the distribution of all heavenly Favours, and of Wrath divine; should be incapable of erring, when his Faculties are impaired or lost, be able to change the Fate and Condition of human Souls, though he could not cure his own Cough, or remove one of his Wrinkles? When such a Spectre, admired only for being wonderful, adored for being frightful, and believed for being incredible, was once allowed or suffered to usurp the Power and Attributes and Majesty of God, it was not at all amazing | to see him presuming to divest Princes of theirs. Nor was it consistent any more than safe for Princes, when once they had allowed this strange Apparition to be God’s Lieutenant upon Earth, to assert any independent Lieutenancy of their own. The Distinction of spiritual and temporal Power, one claimed by Him, the other by Them, though it served Him effectually, could not in the least serve Them, whiles He was the only Judge what was spiritual and what was temporal: To Him every Thing was spiritual that brought Him Power or Profit, as all Things did: Thus Crowns and Kingdoms were His Fiefs and Gifts; and he exercised the civil Sword, because it was necessary to protect the spiritual Empire. All this fully appears in the following Reigns; and by these Reigns it as fully appears, that no Prince can be called Sovereign, who allows the Church, any Head but himself. Whoever meddles with the Persons, or Purses, or Liberties of his Subjects, independently of Him, | divests Him of the Sovereignty over Them, and is their Sovereign: Whoever is Master of his Subjects, is in a fair way of being Master of Him; and whoever assumes a Right to direct Princes, how to treat and punish their Subjects, is not himself their Subject, but their Brother-Sovereign, and will think himself of superiour Importance, as his Sovereignty is spiritual. Anselm by desiring leave to go to Rome, when he found that the King was too strong for him at home, did but shew that he owned and sought Recourse to a foreign Tribunal higher than any here; a step which is and must be high Treason against any Government whatsoever, since where ’tis allowed, no Government can be safe or

3 ⎡heavenly⎤ | of2] all 11 consista⎡e⎤nt

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

182

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 2

consistent. But such real Force had the papal Dominion gained over the Minds of Men, first enchanted by papal Delusion, that, as it could destroy much easier than be destroyed, the fiercest Princes were forced to temporize with it; foolish and bigotted Princes chose to submit to it; and wicked Princes courted it to authorize them in their Wickedness; a Favour always readily granted by the holy Father to any Tyrant who was filial and devout enough to pay well for | Tyrannizing, or to suffer and assist his Holiness in exerting spiritual Tyranny, which was ever and certainly pursuing worldly Ends, cheating and oppressing without Shame or Mercy or Measure. Rufus had yet owned no Pope, and consequently his Subjects could know of none; so that Anselm forfeited his Duty as a Subject in owning Urban.9 He therefore set himself up as King, by doing what none but the King could do, nay set himself above the King by doing it in Contempt of the King; as if his Majesty had failed and sinned in not doing it, and the Archbishop thought himself obliged to stand in His Majesty’s Place and admonish him by his own Example. A Notion and Practice intirely agreeable to the Claim of Independancy in Spirituals, but utterly destructive of civil Sovereignty; since this Claim comprehends all Things, civil as well as sacred. There is nothing upon Earth, however temporal and worldly, but may be brought under some Relation | to Spirituals; and therefore the Pope pretends to dispose of the World itself, to give and take away Kingdoms and Crowns, and to make Mankind his Property as well as his Care, and in consequence of that Care, pretends that all good Catholicks ought to obey Him implicitely, because He is infallible and hath unlimited Power, and that all the World ought to be good Catholicks, or destroyed by good Catholicks for being Hereticks. Who dare contend with Infallibility? All who own it, will defend it: All who deny it, must be crushed by it.

fol. 41v

fol. 42r

4 were forced ⎡chose⎤ 9 Until early 1095, William had not acknowledged either of them, which affected the position of Anselm, since he was obliged to petition the pope for his pallium (the stole denoting that its owner had been confirmed as archbishop). The French and Italian clergy had already acknowledged Urban, and Anselm, insofar as he was a Norman abbot, accordingly accepted him.

The Reign of William II

fol. 42v

fol. 43r

183

This is the real and sad Consequence of spiritual Power, and the World has sadly felt it. The thing itself is full of Absurdity, Contradiction and Imposture. Whatever Power hath a civil and worldly Operation, is civil and worldly Power. There can therefore be no spiritual Power, but what is exercised by the hand of God. Fines, Imprisonments, Stripes and Executions are evidently corporal, temporal and worldly Things, the plain Effects of temporal and worldly Power. Spiritual Power must have a spiritual Operation, or none. Our blessed Saviour neither shewed nor claimed any power but that of Miracles; and they who can shew | no Miracles, have notable Assurance to claim any spiritual Power, especially when all their Actions are deducible from Selfishness and Passion, the common Motives of the worst Actions and the worst Men. Wherever Pride or Anger, Avarice or Revenge, Ambition, Oppression, Ill-nature or Cruelty appears, we may be certain that nothing of Christ, or of His Spirit can be concerned. Let all papal and all spiritual Dominion be tried by this Rule. What Power has ever plagued men so inhumanly, or desolated the World so thoroughly? What Nero, what Domitian, or what other temporal Tyrant soever, has ever matched spiritual Tyrants in Barbarity, Rapine, Tortures and Butchery? The Pagans, though they had many Tyrants, yet wanting spiritual Tyranny, were but faintly tyrannized, when compared with Catholic Communities, who having two Governments to support, where the Pagans had but one, are doubly pillaged and worried, indeed beyond a possibility of bearing, had not the force of delusion | more enslaved, than acts of Barbarity inflamed their Minds. Papal Power is no other than the highest Improvement of worldly Tyranny; and all spiritual Power has the same direct Tendency to become papal, always begun and carried on against Truth and Reason and Nature, and constantly bent to subdue them all. If Anselm was in earnest, and judged himself bound in Conscience to submit to this Pope, he shewed that no Subject to the Pope, could be a good Subject to the King. If he only sought the Pope’s Protection to secure his Interest, which the King had invaded, he was still a bad Subject in setting the Pope over the King. It was transferring his Allegiance to Rome, and teaching the English,

26 ⎡the force of⎤ | ⎡acts of⎤ 33 King.] [[...]]

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

184

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 2

whenever they were out of humour, to appeal to the Pope against the English Government; the direct Road to abrogate that Government. No Government can subsist under partial or divided Obedience, which will always be strongest on the side where the Terror is greatest, as ghostly Terror always is. What is the Wrath of a secular Ruler, who can only afflict us for a short Time, compared to that of a tremendous spiritual Censor, who can doom us to exquisite | Burning for ever, or save us from it? Hence the spiritual Headship, when divided from the civil, will always be too hard for the civil, and should therefore never be separated from it. Where there is a spiritual Head, there can be in effect no other. A temporal Headship will then certainly be inferiour, precarious, and consequently none. A Subordination of Headships is an Inconsistency: So are two Heads both supreme over the same Country. No popish Monarchy therefore is compleat, except that of the Pope. He has a claim of Supremacy in all Monarchies: None but himself hath any Claim in his. Our Government was a lame one till the Reformation, and so will every Government be that suffers any other independent Power whatsoever. Whoever is not absolutely dependent, is not a Subject. Nor can any Government be Sovereign over an independent Member; for he who is so, cannot be called a Subject. An Independency in Spirituals | implies an Independency in all Things: Since he who is thus spiritually independent must be so in judging of Spirituals, and in settling their Denomination and Extent, as well as in his Rules and Behaviour about them. He must therefore have Power to determine what are Temporals, as well as what are Spirituals, and so settle their variation or connexion, just as he likes best. And as there is nothing in Temporals but what has or may have some Relation to Spirituals; this independent Judge, who is to determine both, may consistently assume to controul both, and by holding one Sword grasp and exercise both. This is what the Pope has always done, or claimed to do, done it and claimed it only in virtue of his spiritual Independency, of his Headship in Spirituals. It is thus that this spiritual Father has domineered over whatever is temporal in this World, thus oppressed,

fol. 43v

fol. 44r

7 ⎡tremendous⎤ 18 independa⎡e⎤nt 19 dependa⎡e⎤nt 20 independa⎡e⎤nt 24 Domination ⎡Denomination⎤

The Reign of William II

fol. 44v

fol. 45r

fol. 45v

185

drained, deluded and enslaved the Persons of Men, out of his independent Care of their Souls: And thus every the smallest Curate may do in his Sphere, if he be but allowed to be thus Independent. Spiritual independent Power, is indeed | Power without any Bounds, and the utmost stretch of worldly Policy. Whoever has it may turn the World upside down, and be master of all the Men and Property in it. He can call what he will, any Nonsense, any Knavery, any Foolery, by the Name of Devotion, and make People perform it. He may cajole them out of all that they have by the Cry of Charity, that is, Bounty to their spiritual Guides, or frighten them out of all by the Dread of Damnation. He may make them idle by turning the Year into Holy-Days; and debauched by rioting on Festivals. He may make them reverence Systems for being absurd, Opinions for being unintelligible, Garments for being ridiculous, and Enthusiasts for being crazy; make them hate one another for uttering different Sounds, perhaps equally silly; and destroy one another for Words without meaning. He may make them Rebels to any the best civil Authority, by giving it a bad Name, or Slaves to the worst, by sanctifying it with a good. And as he | may tempt them to part with their Substance for the sake of saving their Souls, he may subject them to Nakedness and Hunger by the Discipline of Pennance and Fasting. He may, under the fair Colours of Edification and Order and Decency, make them zealous for Fancies, Grimaces, Postures and Mortifications, all shocking to Reason, to human Dignity and Feeling. He may list them in the Service of an Altar, or a dead Man’s Shrine, against the Service of the State, and arm them against their Prince in defence of a seditious Priest, justly punished by the Laws. He may censure the Government and even stop its Course, whenever it offends Him, as He is the Judge and Censor of what is good and evil, and consequently of what is indifferent: Nothing can be good that hurts Him; for this is wounding Religion through his Sides: Nothing can be bad that benefits Him; since to serve Him, is to serve Religion. As long as the Body hath such influence over the Soul, who so fit to direct the Body, as he who has care of the Soul? And since the good or ill use of your Fortune must affect both Body and Soul, who so fit to controul your Fortune, as he who controuls the other two? | Your Words and Thoughts and Actions, fall under the same

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

186

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 2

Restraint and Direction, for the same Reasons. So that ’tis plain the Master, any Master, in Spirituals, is Master in all Things. Such naturally are the terrible, the unlimited Consequences of this spiritual Independency; and such they have actually been and are. Nor is it worse for being in the Pope’s hands. It is what has made the Pope, and will eternally produce a Papacy any where, in any Prelate, or even in any Presbyter. ’Tis this which has formed a triple Diadem, and kicked all others down.10 ’Tis this which has turned Religion into Interest and Fury, promoted mutual Hate amongst Christians against the first Precept of Christianity, introduced Persecution with the diabolical Inquisition, and a Series of Murder and national Massacres: It is this which has drawn the Dagger, erected Racks, sunk Dungeons, kindled Fires, all against Reason and Conscience, the two great Characteristicks of Christians and of Men. ’Tis this which has | converted the Laity into Beasts of burden, and made Priests their Riders. ’Tis this which has crushed and brow beaten all manly Knowledge and Inquiries, and made Ignorance the Mother of Devotion? ’Tis this which has every where settled and confirmed Delusion, and with it Bondage; since the Strength of Delusion must ever bear Proportion to that of the Deluders; and therefore Bondage and Delusion must eternally strengthen each other. ’Tis this which brings Gloom and Deformity upon the finest Regions as well as upon the human Souls: ’Tis the exemption from this which sets an Englishman, in Freedom and Ease, so far above an Italian starving, stooping and groaning under ghostly Fears and ghostly Plunder. Anselm despising the King’s Authority and the Laws, where they interfered with clerical Pride and Pursuits, repaired to Rome, there

fol. 46r

7 – 8 Crown ⎡Diadem,⎤ 12 Massacres],: ⎡It [[...]] is this which has⎤ 23 ⎡the exemption from⎤ 25 ⎡and ghostly Plunder⎤ 10

The popes were not depicted with a circle round the base of their conical-shaped cap until after the fourth century. Formerly, it had been completely plain. Boniface VIII (c. 1235–1303), presumably in order to make it more impressive, added a second diadem to the pontifical headdress, and Benedict XII (d. 1342) later affixed yet another one above the other two. Several popes in the Middle Ages disapproved of these innovations and reverted to the single diadem; but by the fifteenth century the Triple Crown or Triregnum had definitely become the pope’s official head-dress for all ceremonial occasions. A symbolical significance was now attributed to the three circlets, described as emblems of the Roman pontiff ’s spiritual supremacy, his temporal dominion, and his suzerainty over all other monarchs.

The Reign of William II

fol. 46v

fol. 47r

187

to instigate the Pope to support him in his Apostacy from Loyalty and Subjection. The King, easily provoked to Acts of Rapine, caused all his Money to be seized before he sailed, and already treated as a Rebel one who was going to sollicit Curses and Calamities against his King and Country. The King had a very interesting Reason for risking all this, and suffering him to | go: For he immediately seized the Revenues of the Archbishoprick, and kept them to his Death. As to the Archbishop all his angry Hopes failed him. The Pope would not engage in any Design of Mischief against England in particular, whilst he was zealously meditating a Scheme big with Ruin to all Christendom, and with Profit to himself. It was the impious Scheme of intoxicating all Europe with the pious Lunacy of rescuing Palestine from the Saracens.11 In this mad meritorious Errand, all good Christians, Princes and Subjects, were to renounce their Homes and Occupations, as they already had their Senses, to undertake endless Fatigues, to meet Death and Distress in all Shapes, to throw away their Lives and Properties, all to invade a People who had not wronged them, and to usurp a Country to which they had no Title; that, whilst they were all thus perishing in a fatal Climate and amongst burning Desarts, some thousand Miles off, beset with hostile and incensed Nations, and attacked by brave Armies | accustomed to conquer; a miserable Friar calling himself the Father of Christendom, might be left to rule Christendom, now deserted by them. He even assumed to direct their Armies in the East; nor was this a Wonder, after they had been crazy enough to let him send them thither. These wild Adventurers were called Soldiers of the Cross, a Name best waranted by the Event, very tragical to Christians, as well as infamous to the christian Name, but of infinite Service to the Pope and his Cause. By this Device, so full of Madness, so full of Danger, the Pope already exalted above all that was called God upon Earth, exalted himself still higher. Sovereigns were now his Officers, their Subjects

5

10

15

20

25

30

6 He ⎡For he⎤ 17 ⎡all⎤ 18 ⎡and⎤ 23 was ⎡might be⎤ 26 Adventure⎡r⎤s 28 [[...]] ⎡Name⎤ 11

The idea of campaigning to restore to Christian rule lands that had been under Muslim control for centuries was not new. In 1074, Pope Gregory VII had considered sending an expedition to help the beleaguered Byzantine empire. Nothing came of the idea in the end, but it is thought to have had a strong influence on Urban II.

188

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 2

his Soldiers, and their Treasury his Finances. Besides as most sorts of wickedness and craft are prolific, one begetting more, the Crusades against the Infidels abroad, were soon followed by Crusades, as flaming Crusades, against Heretics at Home; that is, against all rational, all scriptural Christians, all such as being real Followers of Christ, could not be Followers of the Pope, who whenever he had any Quarrel with any Prince or People, as he had with all, who would not submit to all commanded them, and give him | all that he asked them, raised a Crusade against them and sent these his armed Dupes to devour them. So utterly had continual Fraud on one Side, and Superstition, its Child, on the other, banished all common humanity, with all common Sense, and made the World the Property and Tool of Hypocrites and Magicians. This monstrous and pernicious Expedition was eagerly approved by all Men; as all Men were then bewitched with Superstition and the Grimace of Friars, who puffed it every where with assiduous and enthusiastic Strains, deceiving Society by belying the Deity, daringly promising Success in his Name, or blasphemously making him the Author of it. By their fanatic Sermons and vehement Exhortations, by their bold Lyes, forged Miracles and false Prophecies, they persuaded Poor and Rich, or plundered them. For such as could not undertake this holy strolling, bought others to stroll in their stead. Many illustrious Names recommended this fanatic Undertaking; | many illustrious Persons supported it; particularly Hugh, Brother to the King of France, Godfrey of Boulogne, with many other princely Persons, all meanly descending to let an Ecclesiastic be at their Head: For it was a Bishop who commanded all these great Princes, and led this great Army.12 This strange spiritual General was himself under the Direction of the Pope, or supreme Monk, who bore the humble Title of the Servant of the Servants of Christ. Robert

fol. 47v

fol. 48r

19 ⎡and⎤ 20 ⎡by⎤ 24 illust⎡r⎤ious 25 Bouellon ⎡Boulogne⎤ 27 who] ⎡, under the Pope,⎤ 29 – 30 [[...]] ⎡who bore⎤ 12

Hugh of Vermandois (1053–1101), the younger brother of Philip I of France, was reputedly prompted to join the Crusade after an eclipse of the moon on 11 February 1096. Following the successful siege of Jerusalem in 1099, Godfrey of Bouillon (c. 1060–1100) became the first ruler of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, though he refused the title of ‘king’, saying the title belonged to God.

The Reign of William II

fol. 48v

fol. 49r

(a)

189

Duke of Normandy was so bewitched with the same Spirit, as to mortgage his whole Dutchy for money to maintain him in his Folly. His Brother the King of England lent it him; glad to get possession of Normandy and to send the Owner of it so far from home. Besides this Loan furnished him with a fresh Temptation, which he never could resist, of fleecing his Subjects so often and so lately fleeced; so unlike he was to this his eldest Brother, who would not drain his People even to supply what he thought a pious Exigency. Robert had a Heart governed by Humanity; William had Bowels of Iron. He designed to treat the Welsh | even more savagely than his Subjects, and when he had subdued them, as he meant to do by surprize, to extirpate all the Males of the Nation: A barbarous Design, which he could not execute, because he could not conquer them, though he eagerly attempted it, and their Country was cruelly ravaged, especially by the Earls of Shrewsbury and Chester.13 The same Year, William found another Pretence to squeeze his Subjects, by undertaking some extravagant Buildings, and undertook them only for that Reason: These heavy Taxes he imposed at a Time, when the prevailing public Distresses from the Calamities of the Weather, made any Imposition intolerable.14 But the Sufferings of his People, even such as were inflicted by him, were never felt by him. Had he been as vigilant for Them, as he was for himself, he would have been a good Ruler. Spirit and Courage he had in high Degree. Whilst he was pursuing Sport in the Field, he had intelligence from France, that one of his Cities(a) there was besieged; and | without staying for Councel or Company or Equipage, galloped away in his hunting Dress, as if he had been following a Fox, nor stopped ’till he came to the Seaside, nor there neither, but em-

5

10

15

20

25

Mons.

1 Normandly 7 ⎡this⎤ 10 treat] his Subjects and [[...]] 12 ba⎡r⎤barous 13

During his four years as earl, Hugh of Montgomery, second Earl of Shrewsbury (d. 1098), spent much of his time fighting the Welsh in the Marches. In 1096, he joined forces with Hugh d’Avranches, first Earl of Chester (d. 1101), in an effort to recover the Isle of Anglesey, which had been lost in the Welsh revolt of 1094. 14 When they complained they did not have the money, William suggested they should rob the shrines of the saints.

Chapter 2

190

5

10

15

20

25

30

barked in a Storm, against all the Remonstrances of the Mariners; for the Wind was contrary and the Sea dangerous. What he said upon that occasion shewed more vivacity than Wisdom; he asked, ‘whether ever they heard of a King that was drowned?’ If all Kings had been Sailors, or Kings had been as numerous as Sailors, it would have been a needless Question. This rapid Expedition had its Effect: He summoned his Forces in Normandy; the Besiegers were surprized, and defeated, and their General, the Count de Flèche, taken prisoner. Both the King and the Count upon this Event, made Bravadoes in their Turn. The Count boasted what he would do, if he were free. The King set him free, and desired him to do his worst. William then returned to his Sports in England. William had near gained another grand Acquisition in France from the contagious Spirit of the Times. The Earl of Poitiers was so smitten with it, that he offered to pawn to him | his large Dominions, two of the richest Provinces in France, for a Sum of money to enable him to forsake his Home and his Duty to all that were dear to him there, in order to distinguish his Infatuation in the pious mad Frolic in Fashion. William readily agreed to lend it: but Death broke the Bargain. Full of his own Prosperity and going in Imagination to reap more, from the Possession of Guienne and Poitou, he took the New Forest in his way, there to enjoy the Diversion of Hunting before he embarked. An Arrow shot at a Stag by Sir Walter Tyrrel pierced the King’s Heart as he was riding full speed after it, having already wounded it. The innocent Regicide fled without Pursuers.15 The King’s Body was carried in a common Cart to Winchester, and there hastily interred, without solemnity, as his Brother Henry was in a Hurry to wear the Crown, and without popular Wailing, since a better might, a worse could not, come in his Place. After his Death, it was confidently said to have been foretold by Omens and proph-

3 Wisdom;] when 4 if ⎡whether⎤ ⎡Count⎤ 23 take ⎡enjoy⎤

5 Sailors,] it would have,

9 Earl ⎡Count⎤

fol. 49v

10 Earl

15 The accidental death verdict has long been disputed. Walter Tirel (1065–some time after 1100) was an Anglo-Norman nobleman whose loyalty had been bought. The assassination plot was probably devised in France, as is suggested by Tirel’s rapid reinstatement upon his return to France, following his apparent defection to the king of England, the enemy of Prince Louis.

The Reign of William II

fol. 50r

fol. 50v

191

etic | Warnings, such as always follow rather than precede the Exit, especially the violent Exit, of all Princes; ridiculous Warnings, which having no Effect, are of no Use, and generally, begot by delusion upon Credulity! The Place and manner of his Death, shot as he was hunting in New Forest, ministered matter of observation. The dreadful Waste made there by his Father, who exterminated the Inhabitants to replenish it with wild Beasts, was thought a natural Scene for divine Judgment to fall upon his Race, and this was the third Instance, another Son and a Grandson having already perished there.16 The Truth is, if violent Oppression and Misrule call down Judgments, William Rufus had abundantly earned his own, long before it overtook him. He was a faithless violent Man, void of all Truth and Bowels. He gained the Throne by strong Assurances of a mild and just Reign, and maintained himself in it by barbarity rather than Policy. He reversed the Rule of just, and consequently of safe Reigning, where good Usage is the surest Bond of Subjection. He seemed to think Loyalty best established in Misery and Slavery, and was daily provoking his Subjects to be Rebels, by | being a constant Tyrant to his Subjects. To make himself secure he made his People miserable, crushed them that he might swagger, and rioted whilst they starved. As he was without Compassion, he shewed no Respect of Persons, except upon wrong Occasions. He doomed fifty English Gentlemen to the monstrous and cruel Trial of Fire Ordeal, for being charged with shooting some of his Deer; and as they escaped, he upbraided the great God, as an unjust Judge, for such Partiality to Deer-Stealers. He condescended, for a base Bribe from the Jews in Normandy, to do an Action as full of Impiety as of Cruelty, even to force some Christian Jews to apostatize from Christianity and return to Judaism. He was said to be generous; but to whom? To his particular Favorites, whilst he fleeced and starved his People, who had the best Title to his Generosity. His worst Instruments against the Pub-

5

10

15

20

25

30

8 [[...]] ⎡replenish it with⎤ 16

In 1081, Richard of Normandy, the second son of William the Conqueror, died in a hunting accident in the New Forest during a trip across the Channel, leaving his younger brother William Rufus as claimant. In 1099, one of Robert Curthose’s illegitimate children, Richard, also died while hunting in the New Forest.

192

Chapter 2

lic, and the greatest Pests of the People, had the highest public Emoluments and Honours. A very mean Fellow, but | an excellent Bloodsucker, was rewarded not only with the Treasurer’s Staff, but with the Bishoprick of Durham, for his dexterity in squeezing the 5 poor Subject. He was magnificent in Buildings, and founded Westminster Hall. That is, he ruined the Kingdom and built a great House in it, nay made that great House the Pretence for oppressing the Kingdom. Works of Charity from such a Man (for he did some) were Mockery; as if he could have compounded with God, by giving 10 a Mess of Pottage to Beggars, for grinding and beggaring a whole Nation; or, as if the erecting a Church could help an Oppressor to Heaven. His Courage (a good or bad Quality, just as it is well or ill applied) was pernicious to his People, as it made him Fearless in oppressing them, and in violating all his Engagements to them. Such 15 Proofs of his Courage he was continually giving them. He was a fierce, false, brutal Man, governing by Appetite; a Tyrant like his Father, without his Father’s Ability and Art.

14 them];. sSuch

fol. 51r

Chapter 3

The Reign of Henry the First fol. 53r

fol. 53v

fol. 54r

Henry, who wanted not spirit nor Understanding, exerted both to succeed his Brother. He was indeed a Prince endowed with Politeness and Address, and had Taste enough for Learning to make some improvements in it himself, and to encourage it in others: Qualifications to which William was a Stranger. Henry too was born in England, and engaged himself solemnly to restore the old Saxon Free Government, and to abolish all arbitrary Impositions since the Conquest; an engagement equally | pleasing to the Normans and to the English: For, as the former, who had got all by the meer Bounty of the Prince, and held all at his meer Mercy, thought the Law a more secure Tenure; the latter who had been so long miserably pillaged under meer Will, were glad to enjoy what they had left, upon the ancient Foot of Law. It is true his Brother had promised as much, but performed nothing, and seemed regardless of all Engagements to God and Man. But as kind Promises, however often broken, will always gain fresh Belief, and even be popular, especially when a new Man makes them, Henry who had a fine Person, a pleasing Countenance with great Affability and Address, (all powerful Engines of Popularity!) found not only a willing Assent from the People, but their loud Zeal and Acclamations, so loud and so Affectionate, as to intimidate | the Lords, otherwise partial to his eldest Brother Duke Robert, once before unjustly set aside, and now undoubtedly entituled to the Crown. The Lords thus awed, and apprehending certain civil War, durst not contradict the popular Cry. So little availed the Favour of the Lords to Robert, or the bold Remonstrance made to

5

10

15

20

25

194

5

10

15

20

25

(a) 1

Chapter 3

Henry by one of them,(a) that ‘they were bound by Oath to place Robert in his Brother’s Throne; besides his Right from Seniority and the Law of Nature’.1 Henry who saw his Advantages, in answer to such Arguments, drew his Sword and swore, that no man should touch the Crown. Having thus pacified or terrified all at Winchester, he hasted with it to London, and caused himself to be crowned there the very next Day. Thus on the fifth Day after his Brother’s Death, he saw himself settled in his Brother’s Throne, | a most acceptable Change to the People, who could not but soon find the Difference between Ravening and Protection, and naturally bless the Instrument of such a blessed Change. Henry seemed to be in earnest and his Beginnings were fair. His Brother’s Courtiers and Favorites were all but so many Deputy Tyrants, all abandoned to uncontroulled Lust and Rapine, forcing Matrons and Virgins, oppressing their Husbands and Fathers, and grinding the Subject in general. Against all these Henry issued severe Ordinances, subjecting them to Fines, Imprisonment and even to Death. Trust turned into Oppression, was particularly made Capital without Mercy. He thus cleansed a most merciless and infamous Court. Some were personally punished, some were banished, others banished themselves: | Flambart Bishop of Durham, the late King’s Favorite-Oppressor and Treasurer, was cast into a Prison; and the King, as if he had abhorred all Servitude as sensibly as his People felt it, abolished the most obnoxious Badge of it since the Conquest: For they were now no longer obliged to extinguish their Lights at a limited Hour.2

fol. 54v

fol. 55r

Robert de Breteuil.

It was William de Breteuil, one of the leading Norman magnates, and not Robert, who reminded Henry that they were bound by obligations of homage and fealty to the duke, that Robert had served God for years as a crusader, and had been restored by God’s will to his own duchy and his father’s crown. Although Robert was the Conqueror’s eldest son, Henry could claim that he, unlike his brothers, had been born to a crowned king and queen. 2 Ranulf (or Ralph) Flambard (c. 1060–1128) began his career under the Conqueror; he was probably engaged in compiling the Domesday Book, as well as being the keeper of the king’s seal. He continued to hold the king’s seal under Rufus, and also became involved in administering the kingdom’s finances, where he soon earned a reputation for himself with his novel methods of raising revenue. Ranulf was granted custody of a number of vacant ecclesiastical offices, and at one point was responsible for sixteen vacant bishoprics or abbeys. He was rewarded for his services in 1099 with the bishopric of Durham. On Rufus’s death in 1100, Ranulf was

The Reign of Henry I

fol. 55v

fol. 56r

195

These were but introductive to his greatest and most substantial Act of Benignity, the Restoring, by a Charter, the ancient Saxon Laws and Immunities, reestablishing the old Constitution, with the popular Laws of Edward the Confessor, and renouncing all the usurped Claims and Prerogatives of the two last Reigns. This is the famous Charter of the Liberties of England, and is, and has been justly called the Great Charter. It was a glorious Revival of English Liberty, and | equally interesting to the Normans, who before holding their Lands at the meer Will of the Donor, were likewise exposed to be stripped of them at his Will. The mutual Enmity of the two Nations ended thus in Union, and in combined strength to support a Cause now common to both. To this Train of popular Proceedings he added yet another equally so, by recalling Anselm the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, then a Fugitive at Lions. The People liked him for a wrong Cause, his Opposition to William Rufus; an Opposition arising from a very dangerous Root, and from no Principle of public Virtue or Benevolence, but from a Claim of Right in the Clergy to thwart and controul the Crown and to tread upon the Laws. The People were not aware of this, and only adored Anselm in detestation of Rufus. The | Archbishop was indeed of great use to Henry upon his first Arrival, by his Credit with the People, but proved an infinite plague to him afterwards, as will be soon seen. Henry did next a judicious Thing in marrying Matilda Daughter of Malcolm King of Scotland by Margaret Sister of Edgar Atheling; joining by this Marriage the Blood of the Saxon Race to his own; a Conjunction well pleasing to the English.3

5

10

15

20

25

20 some ⎡great⎤ imprisoned in the Tower of London by the new king, Henry I, serving as a convenient scapegoat for the financial extortions imposed by Rufus. He was also the first prisoner to escape from the Tower, going into exile in Normandy with Rufus and Henry’s older brother Robert Curthose, the Duke of Normandy. Ranulf became a leading advisor to Robert, and assisted in the latter’s unsuccessful attempt to invade England and oust Henry from the throne. 3 Matilda (c. 1080–1118) was a descendant of English kings besides being a daughter of the king of Scots (her mother was the sister of Edgar the Ætheling, who was proclaimed King of England after Harold but never crowned). She had to give up her English name, Edith, which highlighted the fact that her mother was descended from pre-Conquest English kings, and was known from then on as Matilda.

Chapter 3

196

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Robert Duke of Normandy, the King’s eldest Brother, and, besides his Seniority, entituled by his Treaty with William Rufus, to succeed him in England, was at the Death of Rufus, on his journey homewards from the Holy-Land; but where he was just then, no one could tell. He had done an extravagant Thing in order to do a distracted one, mortgaged his Dukedom to Rufus, for money | to be thrown away in that frantic Errand, as is above remembered. When he returned, he found how seasonably he had been out of the Way for his Brother Henry, and how fatally for himself. He saw Henry, what he himself might have been, and claimed to be, King of England in Possession. He had many Friends amongst the Lords, both English and Norman. These laboured to gain him more, and to enlarge his Interest. Most of them doubted that so much Complaisance in Henry was only from his Fear of Robert, and that so many fine Concessions from him, were meant rather for his own Security against his Brother, than for their Security against either. They knew him to be a bold and enterprizing Prince: They knew Robert to be mild, quiet and generous; and what they chiefly apprehended in him was his Indolence and Tameness: | An apprehension which greatly checked the Zeal of numbers. Many however conspired to make him their King, and he himself attempted so to be. Great Mistrusts of the Sincerity of Henry were found and industriously promoted by the Lords amongst the Populace. They remembered how little their two last Kings had regarded their most solemn Engagements; how furiously they had trampled upon their Promises and their People. So that there appeared great staggering throughout the Nation, before Robert appeared in it. As soon as his Embarkation was known, most of the Lords declared for him: So did a considerable Part of the Fleet sent by Henry to oppose him. When he landed at Portsmouth, he found a great Conflux of People and of Congratulations, with copious Assurances from all, that the Kingdom was his own by universal | Consent: Henry, a Prince of much more vigour than Robert, exerted it all to preserve his Crown, and had indeed the Bulk of the Nation manifestly for him. The Zeal and Activity of Anselm secured them still

17 Prince],: and ⎡They knew⎤ 18 ⎡what they⎤ 22 – 23 ⎡by the Lords⎤ 31 ⎡of2⎤

18 – 19 ⎡in him was⎤

fol. 56v

fol. 57r

fol. 57v

22 ⎡industriously⎤

The Reign of Henry I

fol. 58r

fol. 58v

197

more firmly to him. The prelate particularly spoke to the Army, and so feelingly represented the inviolable Sacredness of their Oath, the Ties of their Duty, and the damning Infamy of breaking them, that they afresh pledged their Lives and Fortunes for the Defence of their Liege-King. Robert who now perceived his own inferiour Strength in England, and had no competent Forces from Normandy, seeing his Party dwindle, as he was always more peaceable than ambitious, easily condescended to an Accomodation. By it, Henry kept his Crown, Robert his Dutchy with the Promise of a Pension from his Brother of three thousand Marks a Year, and an engagement to restore him | all the Castles in Normandy garrisoned by the English. He even staid with the King several Weeks after the pacification, in much Harmony and good humour: A dangerous Pitch of Confidence, after an Attempt upon a Crown, to live thus securely with him who wore it! But Robert meaning no harm, feared none; a pleasing Maxim in common Life, and often a safe one, but never to be relied on where Sovereignty is concerned, and Ambition once alarmed. Henry now a Conqueror without Fighting (the best Way of vanquishing Subjects!) finding who were the Authors and Instruments of the late Insurrection, which, when it miscarries, is always Rebellion, thought it his best Way, in order to be safe, to cut off his principal Foes, that is to say, his Brother’s Friends. His late Vigour, Address and Bravery in | Peril, had been signal, and gained him great Reputation, which is always Strength to all Princes, especially to such whose Title is disputed; besides that, having baffled his Enemies in a Body, he could more easily crush the Individuals. Power never wants Reason for doing what it is resolved to do even against Reason. Henry wanted not Pretences for falling upon many of the Malecontents: Some of them furnished him with Pretences, and even with real Ground to attack Them before they again attacked him. One of them particularly, Robert de Belême, Son to the Earl of Montgomery, never spoke of him but as an Usurper, and openly fortified his Castles in Yorkshire, Shropshire and Sussex, publickly upbraiding the Nation, both English and Normans, for suffering Henry to rob

1 He ⎡The prelate particularly⎤ 10 another ⎡an engagement⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

198

5

10

15

20

Chapter 3

his Brother Robert of the Crown.4 By such frantic | Behaviour he was more likely to lose than to secure Accomplices; and upon trial he found that he had none, except such as were ready to be Evidences against him, such as the King had suborned to humour him and betray him. He had gone so far that to escape that Destruction from Henry, which he had vowed against him, he fled into Normandy, leaving behind him a noble Confiscation of Demeans, Castles and fortified Towns. When before his Flight he was called to his Trial, he had been so indiscreet in his Treason, that he could not deny it, nor offer any Defence; and his Recourse to Arms shewed that he was equally ill furnished with Strength. A Family ruined by a Prince, are seldom trusted by him: He presumes that all will hate him, who have Cause to hate him; and all whom he fears are guilty. Henry expelled | his whole Family with him. Henry could deal with turbulent Peers, quell Rebellion, and was the stronger for all the baffled Attempts against him; I mean all the Attempts of Laymen: But the domineering Spirit of the Clergy was not so easily conquered nor awed. They were supported by a power that had put a Yoke upon Kings and assumed to be their Master, to dethrone them and to damn them. This Fairy Power, as Visionary as Judicial Astrology;5 and in itself as impotent and contemptible, has so bewitched the Minds of the People, and so effectually abolished their Senses, that they believed a miserable Impostor at Rome to be Master of Heaven and Earth and Hell, of Crowns and Scepters and

fol. 59r

fol. 59v

3 but ⎡except⎤ 11 ⎡ill⎤ 23 [[...]] ⎡Impostor⎤ 4

Robert de Bellême, third earl of Shrewsbury (1052–after 1130). As a young man, he took part, as did many other Norman nobles of his generation, in the youthful Robert Curthose’s 1075 revolt against the Conqueror. In 1094 one of Robert’s most important castles, Domfront, was taken over by the duke’s brother Henry (later Henry I), who never relinquished it, and was to remain an enemy of Robert for the rest of his life. In 1101 Robert was one of the great magnates who joined Robert Curthose’s invasion of England, which was intended to depose Henry I but ended in the Treaty of Alton. Henry levelled a series of charges against Robert in 1102, and when Robert refused to respond to them, besieged and captured Robert’s English castles. He was one of Curthose’s commanders at the Battle of Tinchebray (1106), where Curthose was captured. After various plans and conspiracies to free Curthose, Robert was seized and imprisoned in 1112. He spent the rest of his life in gaol. 5 The art of predicting future events through calculation of the celestial bodies and their relationship to the Earth.

The Reign of Henry I

fol. 60r

fol. 60v

fol. 61r

199

Consciences; for no Reason, but that He himself blasphemously pretended to it, and his Imps the Friars | averred it. No wonder that he dared to give and change Kingdoms, and was a daily Terror to such Kings as he threatened; since their People believed that his Word, or Excommunication, which was only scolding and deceiving in the holy Name of God, could in an Instant change their Character, and cancel and transfer their Title, with the Duty and Homage of their Subjects. This was a Part, an important Part of the established Faith; and to disbelieve it, was Damnation, together with the subordinate Curse of Jayls, Torture and all Misery in this Life. Such a shocking and impious Creed was correspondent to the Grossness of the Times, the Child of long Ignorance and Delusion, and carefully cherished by the public Instructors. In this Situation and thus encouraged and supported, Anselm, formerly an | Exile for his treasonable Allegiance to the Pope, so repugnant to that due to the King, ventured now to earn the same Fate, as he deserved a much worse. He undertook to execute two daring Schemes at once; one to deprive the Clergy of the Comforts of Matrimony, without regard to the lewd and unnatural Consequences; the second to rob the Crown of the Right of Investing Bishops and Abbots, and consequently to deprive it of the Dependence and Subjection of those great Subjects, so proudly endowed, so greatly followed, and so popularly reverenced. It is certain that, if the King could not invest them, nor deprive them; a Privilege which was likewise denied him, and was indeed tacked to the other, they were no longer his Subjects. He could neither Reward them, nor punish them; and which was worse, they were engaged by the strongest Ties and Influence to a | Foreign Sovereign, and it was in his Power, whenever his Passion or his Interest called him, to animate and arm them against their natural Sovereign, to abolish and change both Sovereign and Laws, and to set up an extraneous Tyranny, or any Tyranny recommended to them by the supreme Impostor at Rome. The Attempt to keep the Clergy from Wives and consequently from Families and Posterity, was sapping the Foundation of the Government, by attacking them to the Pope, and consequently detaching them from the King. But to deprive the King of ecclesiastical Prefer-

2 ⎡that⎤ 23 | t |he ⎡King⎤ 35 – 36 ⎡detaching them⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

200

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 3

ments, was at once to blow up the Government. It was robbing him of the two great Supports of Government, Rewards and Punishments. Whoever possesseth or directs these, possesseth and directs the Government, and is chief Governor. It was an | Attempt to be master of all Kings, by being Master of the Clergy, who were to govern and lead the Laity by the influence of their great Dignities, great Credit and Revenues, and by an Influence still greater, the infinite Force and Charms of Delusion. Is not he who can damn and save Men, able to do what he will with Men? In truth, in those Times, so full of Darkness and Delusion, nothing kept the Domination of the Clergy from being compleat and final, but their own infamy, Violence and Excesses: A spirit so selfish and worldly, whilst they were persuading all Men to renounce the World, made many see (for the greatest part were so blind as not to see) that their chief Aim was to engross it all to themselves, as they had already the best Part of it; and that They of all Men seemed to have their chief hope in this Life, whilst they were stripping the | Laity of all the Enjoyments of it, and recommending them naked to the Comforts of the Life to come. Their passionate Avarice, merciless Oppression and wicked Lives, maimed their Tyranny, and begot Indignation instead of Awe; and they could not be omnipotent whilst their Hypocrisy was so gross and glaring. The Archbishop called a Synod; another daring encroachment upon Sovereignty, indeed a bold assuming to exercise Sovereignty; and there excommunicated all the married Priests, then very numerous in the Kingdom.6 That is, he surrendered to Satan all the Clergy who used the Means of Chastity, and laid all of them under the Temptation of being lewd, or of perishing both here and hereafter.

fol. 61v

fol. 62r

3 directesth1 11 ⎡infamy,⎤ 13 – 14 many ⎡the greatest part⎤ 21 when ⎡whilst⎤ 6

The national synod convened by Anselm at Westminster in 1102 adopted canons against simony, clerical marriages, and slavery. However, the decrees against the marriage of clergy promulgated by this council were as widely disregarded as earlier ones had been, and so in 1105 Henry decided to fine married clergy. Further action was urged in 1108, 1125, and 1127. William of Corbeil, archbishop of Canterbury since 1123, held a synod at Michaelmas 1129, which ordered married priests to do away with their wives. But rather naively, the Archbishop put the matter in the hands of royal jurisdiction, the result being that the king allowed the clergy to keep their wives in return for payment of a fine.

The Reign of Henry I

fol. 62v

fol. 63r

fol. 63v

201

Such was the Piety, the Mercy and Consistency of the Archbishop’s Alternative! | Henry who seems not to have been thoroughly aware of the terrible Tendency of this ungodly and crafty proceeding, gave way to it: He at least thought it of little Importance in Comparison with the Investiture. Here he struggled to preserve the uninterrupted Prerogative of his Crown, as did the Archbishop to rob him of it, profanely calling such Robbery and Treason, the Cause of God. He even threatened to excommunicate such Bishops as had received their Investiture, where only they ought to receive it, from the Crown. These Bishops, very good Churchman, but very bad Subjects, saved him the trouble: They quietly resigned their Bishopricks, and consequently disclaimed their Investiture. The King named others to succeed them. These the Archbishop refused to consecrate: A Ceremony which the King ought to have commanded or dispensed | with, else his Sovereignty was lame. This Contest lasted some Years. The King would not unking himself, by transferring his Kingship to the Clergy. The Archbishop would not quit a Claim so necessary to set the Clergy still further above the Crown. The Archbishop repaired to Rome for support from his trusty Patron the Pope, and was accompanied thither by the resigning Bishops. Mathew Paris suggests that they bribed the Pope with Gold, and observed the strange Force of that Metal in opening Eyes and sanctifying Suits in that holy Court. The King seized the Revenues of the Archbishoprick, and sent Advocates of his own after him, some of them Bishops to plead his Cause and to maintain his Prerogative before the Pope: All which was a Confession of the Pope’s Superiority over the King. It was therefore not so much an Assertion of his own Royal Right | and Independency, as owning the Supremacy of the Pope. But after all this Perseverance, the King was forced to submit and to give up this important, indeed this imperial Claim. He was threatened with Excommunication, and dreaded the Consequences, another Struggle for his Crown and so many discontented Barons; Besides the prevailing Bigotry of the People, from the prevailing Delusion of the Times, and the turbulent Spirit of the Clergy. Had he

3 ⎡who⎤ 4 proceeding,] and 31 with ⎡after⎤ | this] [[...]]

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

202

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 3

contended longer, he might have fared worse. The Pope was just then under some humbling Difficulties, such as disposed him to remit a material Point, and to allow the Bishops to do homage to their Sovereign; that is, he allowed Them to allow Henry to be their King: A great Condescension, or rather Mockery, after he had parted with the Royal Right of Investitures: a Concession fatal to the Monarchy, | and to the Nation for many Ages, and pernicious to Religion, as it set the Clergy more and more above the Duties of Religion, and was only beneficial to Popery and Imposture.7 As the Pope took all Advantages against Henry, so did Henry against his Brother Robert, and shewed as much Ambition and as little Conscience as his Holiness did: Whoever will needs be judge in his own Case, is not like to give judgment against himself; and few Princes in the World are famous for their Equity and Impartiality upon that Occasion. Robert de Belême who, by indiscreet Treason in England, had enriched Henry with all his wide and rich Possessions there, was fled into Normandy, with all his Antipathy and Revenge, and other violent Passions about him. He there fell furiously upon | such Lands as the English Subjects held there, destroyed Towns and Churches, and committed terrible Ravages. Duke Robert, naturally indolent, and wanting Money and Forces, was in no Condition to protect his Subjects and to resist, much less to chastise their Spoiler, nor attempted it till the public Outcries drove him to arms; but even then, like other Princes who are both inactive and poor, he was ill prepared, worse followed and therefore defeated. The victorious Rebel, always aspiring, swallowed in Hopes the whole Dutchy. Other Malecontents, equally ambitions and disappointed, join him. They push their good Fortune; The Duke never provided against Distress, and therefore always in it, could not resist them, and therefore makes a Peace with them, or rather purchases it from them, upon Terms highly

fol. 64r

fol. 64v

12 did];: wWhoever 21 ⎡Duke⎤ 29 Robert ⎡The Duke⎤ 7 On 21 July 1105 there was a personal reconciliation between the king and Anselm at l’Aigle, close to the Norman frontier, during which Henry promised to restore the revenues of the archbishopric. The following year, Pope Paschal II brought the investiture struggle in England to an end, retaining for himself the exclusive right to invest with the ring and crozier, but acknowledging the royal nomination to vacate benefices and the oath of loyalty for temporal domains.

The Reign of Henry I

fol. 65r

fol. 65v

fol. 66r

203

scandalous to himself, and highly | advantageous to Them, such Terms as shewed his Rebels to be his Masters. The victorious Rebels, to strengthen themselves still more, and despising his Weakness, in spite of a Peace which he wanted Power to make them observe, pursue their Depredations, and rob and oppress his Subjects. The Subjects, quite desperate and abandoned by their impotent Sovereign to their Enemies and Spoilers, fly for Refuge to an abler Protector, the King of England, and implore his Relief. He liked the Application, and indeed wanted it. He expressed great Concern for their Sufferings, and greatly censured his Brother their Sovereign, for not preventing or punishing them. He wrote a severe Letter to Duke Robert upon these Heads, and added some Complaints of his own. As he thirsted to be master of Normandy, he sought a Quarrel with the Duke of Normandy. He therefore | threatened his Brother, that if he did not effectually redress all the Grievances complained of, he himself should think himself obliged to redress them: A Menace easy to be understood, that if Robert did not shew himself worthy to be Sovereign of that Dutchy, of which Henry was to be judge, Henry would. He chose to forget that the weakness of Robert was in some measure owing to the Injustice of Henry, who had never paid him any of that Pension by which he had partly purchased his Crown from the juster Claims of Robert, though Robert had been at his Brother’s Court to sollicite in Person that payment. He wanted it the more for that his Debts were excessive; and his ridiculous devout jaunt into the Holy Land, had involved his whole Revenues in a Mortgage. His Wants made him uneasie; his uneasiness made | him complain, and even drop some unwary Words against the King, which the King resented the more because they were true, and was resolved to depose Robert, because Robert had cause to depose him. Henry bent on this Design, but not owning it, laid a heavy Tax upon the English, and thus oppresed his own Subjects to relieve those of his Brother.8 A vain Pretence! He had less to do with his

5

10

15

20

25

30

11 ⎡Duke⎤ 30 Bent ⎡Henry bent⎤ | it,] He 31 ⎡thus⎤ 8

Henry’s expedition required major financial resources. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle complained of ‘taxes that never ceased or diminished’, one of which might have been a levy of geld (the traditional land tax). See Green, Henry I, pp. 78–95, at p. 79.

204

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 3

Brother’s Subjects than his Brother had with his; and he exhausted England in order to usurp Normandy. This severe Tax and the rigorous manner of exacting it, by Terrors, Seizure, and Imprisonment, shewed how little his Politics corresponded with his Promises, and how short his Veracity was of his Ambition. Princes will like other Men be apt to violate their Vow, for what they value more than their | Vow: A Consideration never to be dropped in any Transaction of Importance with Men. He carried with him Men and Money sufficient for his Undertaking, especially as his Undertaking was beginning to prosper by the Temper and Forwardness of the Malecontents before he went openly about it; and with his Money he did as much as with his Men: By it he convinced the Nobles that they ought to join him, and the Governors of Castles that they ought to surrender to him: A method of Persuasion which poor Robert was in no Condition to take. Such Towns as would have resisted, were terrified by the Fate of Bayeux; ravaged and burnt for that Offence.9 Caen, and some other Cities, made their Court by surrendering. All this while he owned not, that he made war against his Brother: He only came over, out of Compassion | to rescue the poor Normans from the Earls of Belême and Martagne, who were playing the Tyrants over them. But whilst he was there, he suffered himself to be convinced, by the Malecontents, who had invited him over, and were undone, if left to the Resentment of their natural Sovereign, or even of the two domineering Earls, that ‘he ought to take the Normans, the ancient Subjects of his Family, under his perpetual Protection, nor to leave them any more to the impotent and remiss Government of the Duke, from whence they had no Security or Defence. It was incumbent upon him to take pity upon them, and to banish their Oppression and Oppressors; for under any other Sovereign the Dukedom would never recover Safety and Repose’. Henry, if he had dictated this Address to himself, could not have done it in a Strain more | to his purpose. He had nothing to do but to confess that ‘they had too much Reason for it: He pitied their Suf-

fol. 66v

fol. 67r

fol. 67v

3 exa⎡c⎤ting 8 with1] all 28 ⎡to2⎤ 9

In April 1105 Henry attacked and captured the town of Bayeux. In the ensuing fire, the cathedral and many other churches were burnt down.

The Reign of Henry I

fol. 68r

fol. 68v

205

ferings. He was extremely touched with tenderness for his Brother and with Compassion for his Weakness and Insufficiency. But out of cordial Concern for the Normans, and in Compliance with their earnest Suit, he would see right done them, and prosecute the War for their Good’. He judged it not proper to rob his Brother of his Dominions without a reason; and thus made them furnish him with one; for he would own no other. He had now made so good use of his Time in Normandy, that he had nothing to do, at the end of this Campain, but to return to England and there furnish himself with money and Forces to take possession of the Country, as soon as the next Season would permit. | Poor Robert had no Forces to oppose, at least none equal to his Danger and Distress. Judging of Henry’s heart by his own he tried the strength of Prayers and Tears, too soft Weapons to combat Ambition. He came over to England and made submissions too base for what he really was, a brave Man. A Prince who is sure of conquering will hardly descend to treat. Henry absolutely refused it, and assumed high merit from suffering his Brother to depart; a Favour which ’tis like he would not have shewn him, had he not depended upon having him again in a less exceptionable Manner. And nothing but the desperate Condition of Robert’s Affairs could excuse Robert for trusting Henry. Was it prudent to venture his Person with one who had long before taken his Crown, and now sought to take his all? | Perhaps Robert, in coming over, trusted to the Compassion and generous Interposition of the English Nation, that his past Misfortunes and present Distress would in mercy to him, incense them against the unnatural Cruelty of his Brother. It is natural to think that Henry could not be so blinded by Ambition, but he must feel much remorse and many uneasie Emotions. They however proved weaker than his Ambition. Besides his Conscience was calmed and his Undertaking approved by that everlasting Incendiary and principal Parent of all Wickedness and Barbarity, the Pope, who, for some valuable Consideration, without which he rarely would do even Mischief, hallowed the iniquitous Enterprize, and declared it laudable.

3 the⎡ir⎤ 6 ⎡thus⎤ 22 Henry];. 30 have ⎡how⎤ever

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

206

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 3

Henry’s next Task was to satisfy the English of the Justice of invading and ruining his Brother. He told the Parliament ‘what an | Enemy Robert was to the English Nation; what a weak and unworthy Sovereign he was to the Normans; what a miserable oppressed People They were; how much their Calamities were to be pitied, and how much it became, indeed behoved the English to relieve them’. And, as none talk more of the Deity, than those who least regard him, Henry, who was defying the Deity by a Proceeding shocking even to the Reason of Man, gravely assured the Lords, ‘that God’s Vengeance had long pursued, and was still pursuing, the Duke, for having, in the East, refused the Kingdom of Jerusalem’. A Charge probably of Henry’s own Invention, in itself ridiculous; but suited to the infatuation of the Times. He then appealed to them, ‘how many Provocations he had received from his Brother, and how peaceably he (who was | now going to war with him) had borne them’. A Charge much like the former, at least as untrue, and as little satisfying. He concluded with something more substantial and of good Relish, by declaring ‘his Resolution to govern by the Laws specified in the Great Charter, which he said he had granted as a Proof of such Resolution’. The Speech upon the whole pleased the Lords, who declared their constant and zealous Adherence to him, and pledged their Lives and Fortunes. Hence he easily gained Supplies, and having made fresh Levies, embarked for Normandy. Robert, upon his last return thither, incensed by his Brother’s barbarous behaviour, convinced of his unalterable wicked Design to spoil him of his all, and thoroughly awaken with his impendent Danger, began to take such Measures, as a Year | sooner would have prevented his Danger. He raised Forces, he satisfied the Malecontents, and even gained the most powerful of them to join him; he had likewise obtained some Troops from the King of France. Add, that many of the Normans who had sollicited Henry to the undertaking, when they saw that by it, instead of relieving them from Slavery, he intended to enslave them himself, came to the Assistance of Robert. He now first made a Figure worthy of a Duke of Normandy, but made it too late. Had he acted all along as he acted now, and gained in time the Reputation of an able and vigilant Prince, his

fol. 69r

fol. 69v

fol. 70r

1 ⎡next⎤ 3 miserable ⎡weak⎤ 6 became,] and 19 ⎡said he⎤ 29 and] ⎡[[...]]⎤ 30 ⎡likewise⎤

The Reign of Henry I

fol. 70v

fol. 71r

fol. 71v

207

Army would probably have had more discipline as well as heart, and not yielded to the Army of the King, as it had a better and more interesting Cause; and equal Numbers. But the English were quickly Masters, | and the Combat soon ended in the utter Rout, Massacre and Captivity of the Normans. The duke shewed all Marks of Bravery, even when it no longer availed him, and scorning to fly with his Men, was taken fighting. This was the Battle of Tinchebray, as decisive as the Battle of Hastings fourty Years before.10 The Prisoners were many, some of great Quality, particularly the famous Edgar Atheling, who after many Traverses of Fortune, was now doomed to pass his future Life in England. Robert himself passed a long and a strict Captivity, prisoner in a Welch Castle for six and twenty Years. Men are not proud of their best Actions only. Good Fortune however fortuitous and ill deserved, Victory and Success however unjustly obtained, never fail to rowse and increase human Vanity. | Henry was not ashamed to be elated with the prosperous Issue of a wicked and unnatural War: He became rough and imperious, treated his greatest Subjects with Sterness and Contempt, and all of them with Injustice. He indeed affected to renew and invigorate his former reforming Scheme, and was inexorable to such Offences as affected himself. Coiners and Venders of false Money were terribly punished, with Mutilations worse than Death. But Crimes against the Subject were not found so heinous, nor the Criminal so rigorously used. His ample Promises to observe the great Charter and govern by Laws, had now as little effect as at first they had meaning. The Charter was forgot; the Laws were despised, the Subject was oppressed. Fear of his Brother, whilst his Brother had Normandy and a better Title than himself to England, had made him a | Dissembler. He was now possessed of Normandy, had his Brother in Durance, and threw off Dissimulation. Every Acquisition gained by a lawless Prince, is a loss and misfortune to his People, as it strengthens his hands against them. Henry

5

10

15

20

25

30

12 ⎡himself⎤ 17 War],: ⎡He⎤ 21 Cxxx⎡oiners⎤ 24 ⎡so⎤ 10

Tinchebray was a decisive military victory, resulting in the reunification of Normandy and England in the hands of one man for almost three decades. It also ensured that French became the ascendant language in England. The battle is variously recorded as having taken place on 27, 28, or 29 September 1106.

208

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 3

loved his People whilst he feared them: Now he thought himself above fear, he shewed himself above Affection. Anselm was the only Subject he treated with Courtesy, his worst and most dangerous Subject. Anselm’s former Insolence and Obstinacy kept Henry humble; and Henry’s humility increased the Insolence of Anselm. This Archbishop was always of a stiff and wilful Spirit, which was far from being softened by Exile. He persecuted the married Priests with fresh Penalties, made their Wives Whores, their Children Bastards, and exposed them to all the lewd Assaults of Incontinency, by forbidding the | Remedy which God allowed against it. But God’s Will and the Will of the Clergy then widely differed; nor was it the first Time: They had indeed different Interests to serve. Henry did not interpose to protect his Clerical Subjects from the Tyranny of Rome; whence he, in effect, confessed, that they were not his Subjects, but the Slaves of the Pope. The King of France, justly allarmed at the overgrown power of Henry, by the Accession of Normandy, cast his Eyes upon a very natural and very dangerous Competitor to him, William sirnamed Crito, Son of Duke Robert, a young Prince of Spirit. Henry who never wanted Vigilance nor Vigour, passed into Normandy with such suddenness, that the King of France, not yet ready to support his design, did not avow it; and William, who could neither oppose him nor escape him, was | taken prisoner. He indeed soon escaped, and applied to many Courts for Assistance; but such was the Awe of his Uncle’s power, that he could procure none. The same Awe kept the Normans from owning him, though they loved him and even privately maintained him.11

fol. 72r

fol. 72v

12 William ⎡Henry⎤ 18 ⎡to him,⎤ 23 ⎡soon⎤ 11

William Clito (b. 1101) was the son of Robert Curthose, duke of Normandy, and the great nephew, on his grandmother Matilda’s side, of Baldwin VI of Flanders. Following defeat at the hands of his brother Henry I at the Battle of Tinchebray (1106), Robert Curthose had lost Normandy and was taken as a captive to England with his family. Entrusted to Helias of Saint-Saëns, count of Arques, who had married a natural daughter of Duke Robert, William became a figurehead in all the conspiracies against Henry I. Count Fulk of Anjou promised him his daughter in marriage, but Henry I had the marriage dissolved and William took refuge with the Count of Flanders. In 1119 he fought with the French at the Battle of Brémule, from which Henry I emerged victorious. In the same year, at the Council of Rheims, the King of France pleaded William’s case as the legitimate heir to Normandy, but was not successful. In 1127 William married a

The Reign of Henry I

fol. 73r

fol. 73v

209

The same Year, 1109, Henry (now a great Name every where) received Embassadors from the Emperor Henry the fourth, demanding his Daughter Maud for their Master’s Wife; a Suit chearfully granted. She had a great Fortune; and to raise it, a great Tax was laid upon the English; a Tax usual in Normandy, now first raised in England, and never discontinued afterwards. It was expressly against the Great Charter.12 Fortune shewed Henry another Instance of Favour, not indeed so glaring as the grand Marriage of his Daughter, but perhaps not less pleasing to him. It was the | Death of Archbishop Anselm, a Man of Learning for those Times, and of blameless private Life, and thence the more mischievous in his public Influence, as he was blindly bigotted to the Interest of Rome against that of England, and bent to sacrifice Law and Gospel, public Liberty and private Conscience to the Imposture and Tyranny of the Priesthood. No Dunce, no Drunkard, Debauchee, Usurer, nor any idle, any vicious Man, in his Place, could have undertaken the Mischief which Anselm accomplished. So narrow and ridiculous are the common Notions of Virtue and Vice! This public Enemy, this Oppressor, a Traitor to England, the Tool of Rome; This Tyrant and Instrument of Tyranny was reckoned a virtuous Man. For indulging private Pleasures, men otherwise harmless and of | remarkable private and public Virtue, are called vicious. So grosly is the World cheated, so blindly governed, by knaves and Sounds! Henry again seized the Revenues of the Archbishoprick, and held them, with many others, for several Years. But whatever Advantages he gained by the Death of Anselm; the married Clergy gained none. Upon the Demise of this Bigot and Persecutor, they hoped some Respit from their Woes, with the enjoyment of their Wives: A chris-

5

10

15

20

25

23 ⎡grosly⎤ | ⎡blindly⎤ 29 and ⎡with⎤ sister of Adelaide, queen of France, and King Louis VI gave him the region of Vexin. After Count Charles the Good was murdered in 1127, Louis VI backed William Clito’s claim to Flanders on the strength of his relationship to Matilda. The towns of Flanders recognized him at first but soon turned against him and called upon Thierry, landgrave of Alsace, to support them. Wounded at the siege of Aalst, William died in 1128. 12 The aid was taken in 1110 to meet the costs of Matilda’s betrothal to Henry V, the Holy Roman Emperor, and her departure for Germany.

210

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 3

tian Hope, but not squaring with the Craft of Rome, and therefore abortive. The Persecution went on, and the Clergy were forced to Hypocrisy and Compliance. With their Wives they parted with their Chastity, and surrendered themselves to all libidinous Excesses some too bestial to be described. The King, as all this Mischief seemed to fall only upon his Subjects, did not interpose to relieve them. It had | been happy for them, had he been as much afraid to oppress them, as he was to protect them. Henry, in the midst of all his Power, had some alarms from Normandy, chiefly occasioned by his Power, and always promoted by France; such however as found him always ready to encounter them. Some he quelled by Force; some by Art. He executed the Earl of Maine; he gained the Earl of Anjou by a Marriage; he took prisoner his inveterate Foe the Earl Belême, and was too wise ever to let him go again, but kept him fast in the Castle of Warham during Life. During this Repose abroad he armed against the Welch, and marched in great Wrath to attack them, as they had committed many Insults upon the English Borders. He had a great Army and easily drove the Welch before him, but could not enter their | Fastnesses, nor force them from thence, though he divided his Army into three Bodies and strove with great Perseverance and all his Might to encompass them. But finding so much Force so fruitlessly applied, he came to a Peace with them, and thus saw himself frustrated of the most sanguinary and barbarous Purpose that ever entered into the Heart of a Man; for he went determined to cut off and exterminate the whole Nation. His next Care was to settle the Succession in his Family. He went over to Normandy, and got the States there to swear Fealty to his Son William, an Infant of twelve years. The Year following he saw the same done by the States of England. Lewis the French King, still justly Jealous of the great Power and bold Spirit of Henry, was constantly labouring to | embarrass him and to shorten his Sway, by inflaming both his Neighbours and Subjects against him. He drew into the Confederacy the Earls of Anjou and Flanders, with some powerful Norman Lords discontented with Henry. The Colour for attacking him was the Deprivation and Im-

4 ⎡all⎤ | ⎡some⎤ 18 Bo⎡r⎤ ders

fol. 74r

fol. 74v

fol. 75r

The Reign of Henry I

fol. 75v

fol. 76r

211

prisonment of his Brother Robert. They had in form demanded his Deliverance. He refused it, as they knew he would; and then they avowed their Design and Confederacy. Lewis publickly invested William Crito, Robert’s only Son, with the Dutchy of Normandy, engaged to exert his whole Power to put him in Possession, and indeed entered Normandy at the Head of a considerable Army. Henry who well knew the Arts and Enmity of Lewis, and was equally bent to distress him, turned his Polities upon him, and finding the Earl of Blow, Nephew to Lewis, | out of humour with his Uncle, worked his Discontents into a Flame, urged him to take due Vengeance, and furnished him with powerful Succours. He was not idle the while in England, but according to his Custom, made such quick and effectual Preparations, so suddenly appeared in Normandy, and advanced with such Rapidity to give his Enemies Battle, that Lewis was dismayed and humbly proposed Peace, upon Terms so honourable to Henry, that they were accepted.13 But as he was obliged to return hastily to England, for a Reason which will soon appear, Lewis always passionate to annoy him, with or without Cause given, and now more implacable against him for his own late Affright and condescension, again invaded Normandy, when Henry as retired from it. There Lewis exercised | his Valour in committing Ravages where there was no Resistance, and violated his Faith with safety to his Person. Henry for some Time treated this Violence with a Contempt which perhaps was not politic, though he gave a politic Reason for it: He said he would stay till the French had spent their first Fury; according to the Maxim and Advice of his Father the Conqueror. He then applied with his usual Activity to gather an Army, and marched directly against the French King, presenting himself at once in order of Battle. Lewis whether from Choice or Necessity, engaged him, but

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 ⎡Robert⎤ 14 the same ⎡such⎤ 27 ⎡the Conqueror⎤ 29 ⎡at once⎤ 13

The defeat at Brémule (1119) effectively forced Louis VI of France to accept William Adelin (Henry I’s son by his wife Matilda of Scotland) as duke of Normandy. William was officially invested with the duchy in 1120. As the heir to the throne, William had received the homage and fealty of the barons of Normandy in 1115 and of the barons of England in March 1116. His untimely death without issue in the wreck of the White Ship on 25 November 1120 sparked a succession crisis.

212

5

10

15

20

25

was utterly defeated, and the Royal Standard of France taken. The extreme Courage and warlike Example of Henry hastened the Victory: whilst he was engaged in the heat of the Combat, he was resolutely attacked in Person by a brave French Knight, and received | such dangerous Wounds, as in spite of his Helmet, covered him with Blood; but he recovered himself with prodigious Ardor, unhorsed his Enemy and took him Prisoner. The French King thus baffled at the arm of Flesh, had recourse to the spiritual Arm. He presumed that the Pope’s Curse, which as his Holiness was his Relation, he hoped to obtain, would hurt Henry more than an armed Host of Frenchmen could. He therefore persuaded the Pope to call a Council at Rheims.14 Henry, not aware of the Design against him, consented that some English Bishops should be present, according to their Summons. But the French Bishops were the Majority: These, as they were instructed, made terrible Invectives against Henry, for his bold Violation | of the Privileges of Holy Church, in depriving and imprisoning his Brother Robert, one of the Church’s Generals in the Crusade, and consequently her Subject. They therefore pressed his Holiness to excommunicate Henry. The Pope, who knew not what need he might have of Henry, and chose rather to keep the Ballance between two contending Princes, than by crushing one, enable the other to crush himself, frustrated the proposal, by undertaking to exhort Henry to do justice to his Brother. The Pope had indeed afterwards an Interview with Henry, and represented to him the Concern of the Council for his Brother: Henry assured the Pope that he had done no Injury to his Brother in divesting him of his Country and his Liberty; for that under him the People were abandoned to Spoilers, and | the Church was threatned

3 He ⎡whilst he was engaged in the heat of the Combat, he⎤ ⎡pressed⎤ 23 Motion ⎡proposal⎤ 25 ⎡indeed⎤ 14

Chapter 3

12 Henry,] [[...]]

fol. 76v

fol. 77r

fol. 77v

19 moved

Pope Calixtus II (d. 1124), born Guy de Vienne, the fourth son of William I, count of Burgundy, belonged to the upper aristocracy. His pontificate was shaped by the Investiture Controversy, which he managed to settle with the Concordat of Worms (in 1122). At the Council of Rheims (1119), Louis accused Henry before Calixtus of rebellion and usurpation, but Henry pleaded his case so persuasively that Calixtus brokered a peace between the two sovereigns (1120), whereby they each handed back their conquests.

The Reign of Henry I

fol. 78r

fol. 78v

213

with Desolation, till he the King took both Church and People under his own Protection. He gave fresh Force to his Reasoning, by a profusion of Bounties to the intire Conviction of the Pope and Cardinals, who every where declared him to be an innocent and an eloquent Prince. No wonder that their Bowels for poor Robert yearned no more: Robert was not master of such Eloquence. The same Pope Calixtus the 2d soon afterwards brought about a Peace between the two Kings. This Use Henry made of the Pope. He seems to have been pretty well apprized of the mischievous Tendency of the Papal Influence in England, when the Reason of his sudden Departure out of Normandy the last Year, was to forbid the Entrance of his Kingdom to a Legate upon his | Way thither without the King’s leave; a Legate of a discouraging Name and Family, Anselm, Nephew to the late Archbishop of that Name! He likewise forbad the English Bishops at the Council of Rheims from bringing home with them any of the Pope’s New Inventions so he justly called them. He knew all such to be pernicious to the Royal Prerogative and to national Happiness. The joy for the Peace was quickly turned into Mourning, by a deplorable Accident both to the Court and to the Nation. When the King embarked for England with his Court and Family, the Vessel that carried Prince William, Heir to the Crown, accompanied by all the young Nobility, by endeavouring to out sail the rest, split upon a Rock, and all that were in her sunk with her. The Prince by the generous Care of the Sailors, was once out of danger in the | Boat, but recalled by the pitiful Cries of his natural Sister: When she entered so many followed her that they overset it, and when some might have escaped, each loving his own Life best, all perished, except one or two who saved themselves by swimming and recounted the Fate of the Rest. The King lost, besides the Prince, his Niece the Countess of Perche and two natural Children, Richard and Maud, together with the Earl of Chester, and many other Lords. He had not long before lost his Queen, a valuable Princess, and thence, as well as for her Descent, always very dear to the English, and now suitably lamented by them.

3 [[...]] ⎡Bounties⎤ 16 – 17 ⎡so he justly called them⎤ 26 Sister];: and wWhen

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

214

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 3

Above three hundred Persons of both Sexes were drowned, many of them of great Quality, most of them said to be drunk, and for this and | their other Vices, in the Opinion of the Historians, visited with this signal Judgment: a very rash Opinion, and very dangerous to be entertained; since they who can persuade you to believe them in this, may persuade you to believe them in any Thing. Where the Almighty fixes no Mark of Distinction as to Judgments, it is daring in Men to do it. Doubtless there were many Sinners amongst so many People; but there were infinitely more every where on shore guilty of equal Enormities, yet visited with no such remarkable Judgment. Besides they who presume to declare Judgments, presume likewise to direct them. A bold Encroachment upon the Divinity, and a terrible Engine of Tyranny and Delusion! Whoever is thought by the World able to foretell or determine Judgments, will be able to govern | the World; since whoever can foretell them, will be thought capable of bringing them or of averting them; and cannot a Man supposed so omnipotent above, do whatever he pleases here below? The King was sorely struck with this affecting Blow, and never after it seen to laugh. Neither did he succeed in his Attempt to retrieve his Loss, by marrying for an Heir; for his new Wife Adeliza, Daughter to the Earl of Louvain, proved Childless. Of the Shipwreck in general he made very political use, and improved it greatly to his own Ends and Advantage: For as by the Death of so many great Subjects, their Widows, Daughters, and Heiresses fell under his disposal, he married them all to his Favorites and Creatures, and thus enlarged his Dependence in the Kingdom. The Incursions of the Welch | into Cheshire, under Griffin their Prince, called the King again into their Country, where after his first Efforts, which shewed his superiour Strength, he found such Discouragement and even such personal Danger, as disposed him to make peace with Griffin, who gave him Hostages and a thousand Head of Cattle. I know not whether any Advantage accrued to Henry from the Death of Ralph Archbishop of Canterbury, which happened about this Time. His Behaviour was decent and popular. He must have been a marvellous Bigot to the chimerical Importance of his Charac-

4 Judgment];: 8 ⎡so⎤ 34 who ⎡which⎤

fol. 79r

fol. 79v

fol. 80r

The Reign of Henry I

fol. 80v

fol. 81r

fol. 81v

215

ter, since from the Prerogative of that See, of putting the Crown upon the King’s Head, he claimed the ridiculous Privilege of putting it on as often as the King wore it, nor would suffer the Monarch himself to | cover himself. So that upon all the great Days of gayety and feasting, the solemn Archbishop must attend and perform the Farce of putting on the Royal Cap. This Claim, how foolish so ever it may appear, was a Claim of dangerous Tendency, and many fine clerical Corollaries might have been drawn from it, but seems in this Primate to have been as much the weakness of a Bigot as the Craft of a Churchman. As I do not find that he gave the King much trouble in other Instances, it is probable that the King knew how to humour his Pedantry in this. Henry, whatever he imagined, was not yet secure on the Side of France, ever famous for straying from her Engagements. Lewis so often frighted from the Field, or routed in it, and tamely submitting to Terms, hated not Henry the less for so many Disgraces received from him; | and liking not to see him in a Condition to give him still more, was unwearied in his underhand Attempts against him. He had again suborned many Norman Lords to put William Crito in Possession of Normandy. The Conspiracy was quite formed and just ready to break out in an open Revolt, when Henry was informed of it. His Motions and Measures were, as usual, so quick and vigorous, that the Conspirators saw him amongst them before they thought him apprized of any Danger from them. His sudden arrival and his strenuous Proceedings after it, dispirited and baulked the Barons, though supported by the French King. Henry who knew it, declared war against that King, and meeting him in the Field with all his Confederates, routed Him and Them. By this Victory he saw himself possessed of many great Prisoners | and many great Forfeitures. He dealt rigorously with the forfeited: Some parted with their Estates to secure their Lives: Numbers were kept in Prison; some had their Eyes put out. Before the King arrived from Normandy a Legate from the Pope landed in England, and agreeably to the Purpose of his coming, assembled a Synod in London, where terrible Canons were passed against married Priests. This Legate, whilst here, made in a Sermon

2 Prerogative⎡ivilege⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

216

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 3

furious Invectives against Priests for keeping Wives, whom he called Harlots, and added, what a horrid Sin it was for a Priest to rise from the Side of a Harlot, to make the Body of Christ; Words big not only with fraud and falsehood but with the most daring Blasphemy. This Hypocrite, this lewd Advocate against Lewdness, was taken in Bed with a Harlot that very | Night, though he had that very Day said Mass, which in, his shocking Style, was making the Body of Christ. His Name was John di Crema; his Dignity, that of a Cardinal: It would be pity that either should ever be forgot. We have the first Relation from an ecclesiastical Historian, Huntington, a Priest and the Son of a Priest, who says it was too notorious to be denied, and ought not to be concealed.15 These Legates, invested with the Pope’s Power, which was superiour to the King’s Power, bore a Character subversive of Government, raised upon papal Imposture and popular Delusion. Whilst such Power subsisted, the King was only so in name; and the greatest Christian Monarchs were Subalterns to his Holiness, who commanded them, nay commanded them by his Deputy, the Legate, | to execute his most impious and most imperious Decrees, decrees against themselves and their People, against Religion and common Sense: A sad observation, to be made plainer and plainer in the Course of this History! Henry managed this insolent encroachment upon this Occasion, with great Dexterity, and turned it to his own Advantage: He procured Authority from the Pope to put in Execution the Decrees of Councils against married Priests; and then for a Sum of money he let single Priests marry, and married Priests keep their Wives. Henry having no legitimate Son, nor hopes of any, got his Daughter the Empress, now a Widow, to be acknowledged by the States as Heiress to the Crown. Her Descent by her Mother from the

fol. 82r

fol. 82v

4 ⎡fraud and⎤ | falsehood] and [[...]] 7 is ⎡was⎤ 18 ⎡them1,⎤ 24 [[...]] ⎡procured⎤ 15

John held a legatine council at Westminster Abbey on 9 September 1125. One of his tasks concerned the enforcement of the celibacy of the clergy. A story that circulated at the time, and was also mentioned by Hume, is that he had been surprised in bed with a woman (perhaps supplied by the Bishop of Durham). This is now considered to have been a rumour spread by Henry of Huntingdon (c. 1088–c. 1154), the son of a canon in the diocese of Lincoln and the author of a history of England from the invasion of Julius Caesar to the accession of Henry II.

The Reign of Henry I

fol. 83r

fol. 83v

fol. 84r

217

ancient Saxon Kings, endeared her to the English; as did her descent from | William the Conqueror, to the Normans. His next Care was to see her married. He chose for her Husband Geofry Plantagenet, Son of the Earl of Anjou, thus to secure Normandy by such a considerable and convenient Ally against the Machinations of France; though neither the Lady, nor the Peers liked the Match; she as below her Imperial Quality and State, and They as not suiting their own aspiring Views.16 Agreeably to his Apprehensions he soon saw the French King openly espouse the Cause of William Crito, and even invest him with the Earldom of Flanders; a Donation which added to the Alliance of France, made him a formidable Competitor to Henry, at least for Normandy; and had he behaved himself popularly to the Flemings, he might have made very dangerous | Efforts; for he was very brave, and had some other good Qualities, like those of his Father. But unlike his Father, he was violent, and penurious, and blindly abandoned to Women. His many Excesses, so many offensive Ways, provoked his new Subjects. Henry inflamed their Discontents, and persuaded them to submit to the Landgrave of Alsace, who pretended a better Right. Thus most of the Flemish Towns declared against William. Whilst he besieged one of these Towns, the first he attempted, though he defeated the Landgrave coming to relieve it, he died of a casual Wound, though not from the Enemy, before the Town could be taken. Henry the while had entered France at the Head of a potent Army. His terrible presence there and the Revolution in Flanders, broke all the Measures and Courage of the French | King. He sough Peace and obtained it, nor even provoked the King of England to frighten him, or beat him more. Henry, during the rest of his Reign, which lasted six Years longer, lived in Repose, and had the Joy to see his Family and the Succession strengthened by the Birth of a Grandson, called after his Name, and

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 and ⎡as did her descent⎤ 23 ⎡though⎤ 16

On 17 June 1128, Matilda, then 26, was married to Geoffrey of Anjou, aged 14. Geoffrey called himself ‘Plantagenet’, after the broom flower (planta genista) he adopted as his personal emblem. ‘Plantagenet’ became the dynastic name of the powerful line of English kings descended from Matilda and Geoffrey. They had three sons, the eldest of whom became King Henry II of England.

218

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 3

confirmed Heir apparent to the Crown by the Oaths of the States. Perhaps his Joy was not lessened by the Death of his eldest and only Brother Robert once his Competitor; then long his Prisoner in the Castle of Cardiff in Wales. It was but a natural Course of Policy, when he had robbed him, first of a Kingdom, then of a Dukedom, to rob him also of his Liberty. Had another and a worse Step been necessary, ’tis no presumption to guess that it would have like-|wise been taken. What can check untameable Ambition, what Merit, what Innocence, what Consanguinity? Some say his Eyes were put out: A Cruelty which, if never executed, was never found necessary, and could have appeared but a Peccadillo in the Eyes of one who had committed so much. No Man can foresee the Train of Mischiefs naturally following the first, not even he who commits it: Perhaps he abhors the Thoughts of committing more, yet makes it necessary to commit them and grows fitter for doing it. One evil Deed is generally big with many, or may be, and therefore ought to be scrupulously and warily avoided. It does not justify Henry, to say that Robert wanted Talents to govern. He was honest, humane and brave. These are the fundamental Talents: If he wanted Industry to apply them, it would have become a kind Brother to have | assisted him, and Henry had great Sufficiency to have done it, but like a true Enemy took advantage of his Indolence, his Easiness and Credulity (often the Attributes of the best Minds) to ruin him utterly and treat him barbarously. The King did not long survive his Brother. He died after a long Reign of thirty five Years and odd Months, in the sixty eighth Year of his Age. It is said that his Death was caused by a Surfeit of Lampries; a Dish more savoury than safe especially to old Age. It is the only Instance we have left of his Intemperance at Meals. His Sobriety, was indeed remarkable and of a piece with his vigilance and activity. He was greatly formed for Affairs, military and civil. So much Tranquillity in England, amidst so many Malecontents, and under such severe Taxes and Impositions, | many of them very wanton, some of them plainly against Law, is a proof of a steady and respected Administration. His own Example and Application to the Management of

fol. 84v

fol. 85r

fol. 85v

10 ⎡n⎤ever1 11 ⎡could have appeared⎤ 15 more,] and 15 – 16 ⎡to commit them⎤ 16 ⎡doing⎤ 25 ⎡. He died⎤ 30 ⎡remarkable⎤ 34 ⎡a2⎤

The Reign of Henry I

fol. 86r

fol. 86v

fol. 87r

219

Affairs, with his Severity to all inferiour Magistrates, who neglected their Function, produced great good order in the Kingdom, and consequently great Quiet: Blessings never to be expected where the Government is not esteemed and feared. In War, it cannot be easily decided in which he most excelled, Councel or Execution, ardour or Precaution. He was certainly an able Man, indeed a Hero, but like too many other Heroes, wanted due Tenderness for the Lives and civil Rights of Men; though without that Qualification no Heroism is compleat. He had other Advantages, though not of equal Importance, yet necessary and popular: a fine | Person and Aspect, Affability, Learning, quickness of Parts, great Freedom and Volubility of Speech, with whatever gained sudden Respect and Affection: signal and happy Advantages in a Prince! By the Steadiness of his Government, private Property was so safe, at least from all Hands and Encroachments but his own, that together with great Quiet, there was great Plenty in the Kingdom. Such public Blessings were in a great Measure the Effect of his own Charter; such a Barrier to his own Power, as he sometimes invaded, but never overthrew. He however proceeded so far towards it, as shewed a good will to destroy it. But the Destruction of the Charter might have proved his own Destruction. For as he gained his best Title to the Crown from the Grant of the Charter, he preserved the Charter to preserve his Crown. He had indeed so many Claims against | him, so many Attacks made upon him, so many powerful Enemies, so many formidable Competitors, so many Dangers constantly threatening him, that with all his high Courage, Vigour and Capacity, he derived his chief Security from securing the People in their Properties. There were some Excesses of regal Power, but not habitual and always excused by apparent Necessity, and the Distresses of the Crown. What he did in Compensation for all his Injustice, Oppression and private Sins, was the most sinful and oppressive Part of his Reign: I mean his lordly Endowments to Monks and Impostors, the Deluders, the Devourers and Incendiaries of the Earth, Mockers of God and sworn Foes to Truth and Conscience. This was then the Trade driven between the Church and all guilty Men, to cancel their blackest Guilt, for a Bribe to Churchmen. In | this Office for ensuring Souls, King Henry largely ensured

1 and ⎡with⎤ 13 – 14 Gover⎡n⎤ment

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

220

Chapter 3

his own, by founding several rich Cathedrals and Abbeys, whence a Course of Ignorance, Debauchery, Pride and Wantonness was also ensured to the Clergy, with a Train of Delusion, Poverty and Servitude to the poor Laity. It was the Fashion and Infatuation of the 5 Times, the Way that the rich Men of the World took to save their Souls, and the Way for the Monks to acquire all the Riches in it, as they have done in many monkish Countries, had near done it in England, and were only stopped by the Reformation, which overturned Monkery.

6 ⎡for the Monks⎤ | acquire] to the Monks 7 Countries,] and

Chapter 4

The Reign of King Stephen fol. 89r

fol. 89v

1

The natural Successor to Henry was his Daughter the Empress Maud, now Wife to Geoffry Earl of Anjou, and by him Mother of several Sons. To her the Succession was thrice ascertained by the solemn Oaths of all her Father’s Subjects in his life time. Such had been 5 his Care in the Entail of the Crown, and his Care would have been successful, could he have made Conscience and Honour an Overmatch for Perfidy and Interest. The Barons and the Clergy had sworn Fealty to Maud; and now both espouse the Claim of Stephen (who made one for himself ) against Maud. Stephen too was the first who 10 had sworn to her, and now owns that he had sworn treacherously, by aiming at the Crown himself.1 Men often frustrate their favourite Schemes by the very Measures, which they take to advance them. Henry who found Stephen a Man of Spirit and Ability, and was besides | partial to him, as he was his 15 Nephew, by Adela Daughter of William the Conqueror, married to the Earl of Blois, thought it politic to enrich and support his own Relations, who by their Power would support the Succession, and

Stephen’s mother’s was Adela, countess of Blois, the daughter of the Conqueror. Stephen was lucky to escape drowning together with Henry I’s son, William Adelin, when the White Ship sank in 1120: William’s death left the succession of the English throne open to contention. When Henry I died in 1135, Stephen immediately came over from France and seized the throne with the help of his brother Henry of Blois (1101–71). He argued that the preservation of order in the kingdom was more important than earlier oaths to support the claim of Henry I’s daughter, the Empress Matilda. Following his coronation, Stephen won the support of many of the barons and of Pope Innocent II.

222

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 4

made Stephen so powerful, that he was able to seize the Succession. The King had endowed him with great Demesns (chiefly Forfeitures) and given him an Earldom. He had likewise exalted Henry a Brother of Stephen’s very highly in the Church, made him a mitred Abbot and then Bishop of Winchester;2 a Prelate wonderfully qualified for the Times, a flaming Incendiary, fierce, ungrateful; furious to satiate his own Passions; ravening after Power and Wealth and Vengeance; unnatural in his Enmities and Aversion to his own Blood; pushing his own small Quarrels at the Expence of national War and public Ruin; ashamed of no change nor perjury; an Enemy to all Religion and Morals, despising all Oaths, with the Laws, Repose, and Security of Society; full of | Zeal for the impious Fooleries, the matchless Idolatry and universal Tyranny of Rome; an untameable Champion for the false Rights and chimerical Dignity of his Order; an Enemy to God, a fast Friend to the Pope, and fit to be what he was, his Legate; an Office in which he impiously shined the genuine Fore-runner of Becket. This pious Traitor was joined by two more like himself, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Roger Bishop of Salisbury, a rich and splendid Prelate, created too by the partiality of King Henry, and by his boundless Trust and Indulgence raised to immense Power and Wealth. This holy Triumvirate zealously combined to break their Oath to their Benefactor, and to engage the Clergy in the same meritorious Perjury: It does not appear, that the Task was difficult: The whole Order, with all the Bishops at their Head, preferred Interest to Oaths and Conscience: Nor did the Laity venture to swerve from the worst Examples of the Clergy.3

fol. 90r

14 [[...]] ⎡chimerical⎤ 2 Although Henry of Blois, Archbishop of Winchester since 1129, had played a key role in securing the English throne for him, Stephen relied heavily on other advisors, including the powerful Beaumont family. They persuaded him to appoint Abbot Theobald of Bec as the archbishop of Canterbury in 1138, dashing Stephen’s own brother’s hopes of filling the vacancy. However, Henry had excellent contacts in Rome, which he used to secure the post of Papal Legate the following year, which, at least technically, was a higher position. 3 William of Corbeil, the archbishop of Canterbury had sworn to Henry I that he would support his daughter’s claim to the English throne, but after Henry’s death he crowned Stephen instead, on 22 December 1135. He was won over by Henry of Blois and Roger of Salisbury, bishop of Salisbury, who sustained that Henry had no right to impose the oath, and that in any

The Reign of King Stephen

fol. 90v

fol. 91r

223

Stephen (who had hasted over) was present amongst them; a lively Man and popular, indefatigable in his Applications, magnificent in his Promises: Maud was abroad, little liked in England, | her Spirit arrogant and capricious; and her Person distasteful to the Public. Besides, all proper Expedients were offered to reconcile the Nation to this national Perjury. The late King’s Steward took his Oath that King Henry did, upon his Death-bed, disinherit his Daughter Maud, and leave the Crown to Stephen his Nephew. There was still a greater Authority to enforce the Justice of Perjury: The Archbishop of Canterbury maintained that their Oaths were unlawful and void, as taken to a Woman, who could not rule in England. The Bishop of Salisbury argued, that such Oaths were null, as taken to one out of the Kingdom. The holy Men knew all this at first, and therefore when they swore to her, seem to own that they intended to be forsworn, as now they effectually were, as well as zealous to make all Men so. They were perjured Knaves, though Stephen had been no Usurper. There was a more substantial Motive for recommending Stephen than all the foolish Subtlety and knavish | Chicanery of Priests. As he was conscious of his weak Pretensions, he chiefly gained the Barons by a Promise of new and tempting Immunities; a Promise which he kept to them just as faithfully, as They had their Oaths to Maud. He promised with the same Facility to restore and enlarge all Church Privileges, and to cure all Grievances complained of by Churchmen: For, they had little Anxiety for the Oppressions of the Laity: And the Oath which they administered now to King Stephen, a long and unusual one, was chiefly replete with many and strong Clauses for the Security of Church-Property. Their own Oath to the King was in yet a higher Strain: The Bishops swore Allegiance to him no longer than He continued his Indulgence to Them: And as they now swore they generally acted, before and since. We shall see in this, we shall see still more fully in the next Reign, that one of their indispensible Privileges, was to play the King over the King. The Oath of the Bar-

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 ⎡amongst them;⎤ 3 abroad,] and 27 unus⎡u⎤al case the dying king had released the barons and bishops from their oath. The royal steward, Hugh Bigod, swore that he had heard the king say he released the oath.

224

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 4

ons was of the like Tendency and Frame. They too swore conditional Allegiance, led by the Earl of Chester, natural Son to the late King Henry. Stephen submitted to these Limitations, nay to all that was | required of him, and even to grant a new Great Charter fuller than the former. Notwithstanding all these popular Concessions, as he knew there was a Rival and Malecontents, he levied an Army of Foreigners, I think very inconsistently with the Charter; a Proof, that, if he could not maintain his Crown by such Means as he ought, he would by such as he could. His Behaviour was however still very soothing and gracious; He called the States together at Oxford, there signed the promised Charter, owned himself chosen King by the Voice of the Nation; engaged strictly to observe all their Rights, to repeat no former Encroachments, to abolish all rigorous Laws since the Conquest, especially Forrest Laws, and to recal the old Saxon Laws. He had already by his Coronation Oath abolished the old Imposition of Dane-Gilt, an odious Tax imposed by the usurping cruel Danes, suppressed by Edward the Confessor renewed by the Conqueror, and continued by his Sons. Such Stipulations were only a Bargain for the Crown; and so many Concessions | the Price of a Kingdom, perhaps thought by the Buyer too high ever to be paid. Stephen was resolved to promise every thing to get it, and do every thing to keep it. The People had made him King upon their own Terms, and he proposed to rule them upon his. This appeared very soon in a very signal and tender Instance. Upon the Death of the Archbishop, he not only seized the Rents of the Archbishoprick, but the Estate of the Archbishop, as he died intestate. It had been indeed the Practice of the Norman Kings, but a Practice lately condemned by himself as Usurpation, and therefore never more to be repeated. So glaring a Departure from an Engagement so sacred, could not but alarm the Clergy. But the Clamour there was not equal to the Provocation; because their Chief Leaders lived in Hopes of supplying the Vacancy by the King’s Favour, and therefore would not irritate him by Reproaches. His Reign continued quiet for some Time, but not long. Many of his Subjects, who because he could not be crowned without them, conclude that he could not reign without

1 Frame],. and tThey

fol. 91v

fol. 92r

The Reign of King Stephen

fol. 92v

fol. 93r

4

225

them, behaved with high Insolence towards him. Some, though well rewarded for their Services to him, thought themselves neglected, because their | Rewards were not so extravagant as their Hopes. Whoever thinks that he has conferred a Kingdom, thinks that he has a Right to be the next Man to the King; and where numbers claim this Merit, how is it possible to satisfy them all? He who has the smallest Share in the Event, is vain enough to conclude that he had the greatest. Others considered him as an Usurper, regretted the Breach of their Oaths to Maud, and wanted to call her in, as their lawful Sovereign. So that he had a trying Struggle with Friends and Enemies, chiefly with the former; as they who can best assist, can likewise best obstruct. He spared no Pains, nor Cost to gain both sorts: But his Efforts, though they were generous, were not successful. Those who felt his greatest Bounty, were offended that it was not greater; as others were to miss it themselves. In truth from his greatest and most gracious Condescentions, he reaped his heaviest Misfortune and Opposition, by generously permitting the Barons to fortify their Castles and even to build new ones. | Insomuch that there were more than a Thousand in the Kingdom, the Seats of so many Independent, at least, precarious Subjects. Whoever is secure in his Disobedience, need not obey; and he who need not, will not. Such Strength set them above Fear, and their want of Fear, above Allegiance. The Owners were all little Sovereigns, at least too great for Subjects. The first of them who at once alarmed Stephen and opened his Eyes, was Robert de Rivers, Earl of Devonshire.4 The King had denied him some small Favour, and he declared himself a Rebel against the King; and as one need not be a great Prince, to be a very great Tyrant, he, trusting to the Strength of his Castle at Exeter, exerted his lawless Might upon the Persons and Property of the Citizens there. The King made the more haste to attack this arrogant Earl, as the Welsh were making Incursions at the same Time into England. He besieged the Castle and in some Time took it; the Rebel fled to the Isle of Wight, which was likewise his Demesne; and from thence

5

10

15

20

25

30

Baldwin de Redvers, the first Earl of Devon (d. 1155), was one of the first nobles to rebel against King Stephen, in 1136. He never recognized the new king’s authority, the only leading magnate never to do so.

226

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 4

out of the Kingdom. Stephen likewise disinherited him of all his Possessions. The like just Severity to a few more powerful Offenders, would have | been seasonable and prevented the Growth of more. Stephen punished but one; a Lenity which encouraged all; and many proved Revolters, because they found they might revolt with Safety. Stephen marched next against the Welsh, who, encouraged by his domestic Distresses, ravaged and plundered the Frontiers. His attack upon them, though very just and provoked, failed him, proved fatal to his Army, and was rather a Slaughter than a Defeat. A sudden Panic, the stronger for being unaccountable, had seized the English, and so unmanned them, that they were tamely taken by the Welsh Women and Children. Many were drowned by the Fall of a Bridge. Several thousands perished, some of great figure. This Rout happened near Cardigan, and the Welsh renewed their Incursions for some Time, with infinite Success and Spoil.5 The King, tho’ embarrassed on all sides, had yet another Enemy upon his hands more formidable. The King of Scots, declared for the Empress Maud, his Niece, invaded the northern Counties, seized Carlisle and | Newcastle, and was advanced as far as Durham, before Stephen could meet him in the Field; which however he did more suddenly than could be expected, and, what by the Sword and what by Treaty, brought the Scottish King to a Peace. The latter kept Carlisle, and his Son Henry had the Earldom of Huntington, for which he did Homage to the King of England; a Condition which his Father refused, as being sworn to own no Sovereign in England but Maud, after the Death of her Father. The King at his Return fell sick, and the Welsh renewed the War, with their usual Depredations. Maud’s Party exult and increase. Her Husband the Earl of Anjou attacks Normandy; but the Normans (who were persuaded that Stephen was dead) call in Stephen’s elder Brother, Theobald Earl of Blois. Stephen recovering found himself thus distressed, and Factions every where formed against him at

fol. 93v

fol. 94r

1 [[...]] ⎡Stephen⎤ 11 ⎡the Welsh⎤ 5

The Battle of Crug Mawr took place in September or October 1136. After a bitter fight, the Norman forces crumbled and were chased as far as the River Teifi. A bridge being used by the fugitives to cross the river broke under their weight, and hundreds were reported to have drowned.

The Reign of King Stephen

fol. 94v

fol. 95r

6

227

home and abroad. He first repaired to Normandy and recovered it, securing his Brother by a yearly Pension; softened the French King with a seasonable Sum, and even drew him into an offensive League; and, to leave him no umbrage of his great Power from the Union of | England and Normandy, resigned the latter to his eldest Son Eustace Earl of Boulogne, who did Homage for it to the French King.6 E’er he had well made this Pacification, and before he had left Normandy, all his Views of quiet Days in England were defeated by News of the Invasion of Northumberland by the King of Scotland, who claimed it for his Son Henry. A heavy Stroke, and implying more; as the Scottish King acted in Concert with the English Barons, who were already rising for Maud in England, and beginning to seize Towns, particularly Bedford, which the active and indefatigable Stephen recovered by a long Siege even in Winter. He then advanced against the Scots, but was recalled by more formidable Foes, the Barons, almost all in Arms against him. The Cry of Grievances was the Pretence; but the true Cause not owned. They wanted higher Rewards from him for giving him a Kingdom, than even a King was able to bestow. To satisfy them all, he must have had more | Dominions, and even then have left himself none. It is the sure Plague attending a bad Cause in Distress, or even the best rescued from it. They who support either, if they miss their Claims of Merit, which are generally extravagant, often impracticable, will oppose either. Stephen found his late most vigorous Champions, to be his most implacable Enemies. It is pity that he had left them so much true Ground to plead for deserting him, though they pleaded it falsly, alledging public Grievances, whilst they were pursuing their narrow Passions, and dignifying dirty Spite with the fair Guise of Zeal. The King, who now saw clearly what he might have as easily foreseen, that the strongest Oaths are too weak to bind selfish Con-

5

10

15

20

25

30

In 1137, Eustace IV (c. 1130–1153) paid homage for Normandy to Louis VII of France, whose sister, Constance, he married in 1140. At a council held in London in 1152, Stephen induced a group of barons to pay homage to Eustace as their future king. However, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Theobald of Bec, and the other bishops refused to perform the coronation ceremony, saying that the Roman curia had dismissed Eustace’s claim. Eustace died suddenly the following year, in early August 1153.

228

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 4

sciences, took, as the Barons had done, ill advice of his Passions; and he who had made but one Example of Vengeance after the late Revolt; which surely was wrong Policy, there being Danger from excessive Lenity as well as from excessive Cruelty; fell into the other Extream, and, having taken and razed several Castles, imprisoned many Barons and confiscated many Estates. This unrelenting Rigor raised | unrelenting Rage, and made the King’s Cruelty, which was carefully ecchoed, dreadful to several, who before had no dislike to him, but now, through precaution, joined against him; and the whole Body of them sent over a solemn Invitation to Maud, declaring that they were prepared and ready to raise her to the Sovereignty. At the head of the Barons was a natural Brother of Maud’s, Robert Earl of Gloucester, the most trusted, the ablest, and the most zealous for her Interest.7 It was he who chiefly animated the Conspirators, managed the Insurrection, and advised his Sister. He was yet in Normandy and in his Letters, as well as in his public Declaration against Stephen, used him with great Bitterness and ill Names, charged him with Perjury, Treason, and Usurpation, as the first who had sworn Allegiance, then renounced his Allegiance, and seduced all others from theirs. A Charge the more severe for being true. The King’s return to it was perhaps more severe, though a | silent one: He seized all the Earl’s Castles and great Demesns within the Realm. This proved a new Spur to his Zeal, and quickened his arrival. It was alledged in his Favour, that his Conscience was allarmed by some Incendiaries amongst the disaffected Monks, who, though little subject to any Remorse, whenever their Rage is rowsed, are always dexterous at infusing Scruples into other Men. Some say his Vengeance to the King was caused by a Design of the King’s against

fol. 95v

fol. 96r

7 Robert Fitzroy, the first earl of Gloucester (before 1100–47), was an illegitimate son of Henry I of England, and the Empress Matilda’s chief military supporter during the civil war. After capturing King Stephen at the Battle of Lincoln on 2 February 1141, the Empress Matilda had the upper hand in the struggle for the crown, but she alienated the citizens of London and failed in her ambition to accede to the throne. Her forces were defeated at the Rout of Winchester on 14 September 1141, and Robert of Gloucester was captured nearby. There was then an exchange of prisoners, King Stephen for Robert of Gloucester, but by freeing Stephen, the Empress Matilda lost her best chance of becoming queen. She subsequently returned to France, dying there in 1167, though her son succeeded Stephen as King Henry II in 1154. Robert of Gloucester died in 1147 in Bristol Castle.

The Reign of King Stephen

fol. 96v

fol. 97r

229

his Life: Probably too he had first provoked the King to that Design, if there were really any such in the King. Stephen now saw himself terribly beset. The great Barons in open Rebellion; the King of Scots again with a great Army ravaging the North: Daily Apprehensions of an Invasion from Wales; the Empress every Day expected at the head of a Host of Foreigners: The Fidelity of his avowed Friends, not to be trusted; nor that of his Army to be relied on. But he had a great Spirit and seems constantly determined never to resign the Crown but with his Life. What pity that so brave a Prince had not a better Cause? What Pity that such excellent Talents had not | been better applied? Stephen had some Luck as well as Courage. Whilst he was on every side combating, and on every side combated by the Barons, the North which seemed abandoned to the Conquests and Ravages of the Scots, found a Deliverer in a Churchman. Thurston Archbishop of York had so much Popularity and Address as to form an Association amongst the Men of Condition round him, to set an Army on foot, and to make such Representations to them of the King’s Distress and their Duty to the King and themselves, that no Body of Men could be better disposed towards their King and towards his and their Enemies.8 When the Army was drawn out well spirited in themselves, and well officered, as they were, by very brave and able Leaders, they are said to have been further animated by a warm Speech of a northern Bishop, particularly by an Assurance he gave them of an immediate Passage into Paradise from the Field of Battle, if they perished in it: A very potent Artifice, but liable to be perverted to a | bad Cause as well as employed in a good. It inferred only that the Bishop thought God Almighty to be as heartily in King Stephen’s Interest as the Bishop himself was. We shall soon see other and greater Bishops with equal Boldness and more Violence, enlisting the Almighty in the Cause of Maud and

5

10

15

20

25

30

15 ⎡Arch⎤Bishop 20 their2] own 8

Thurstan had served in the royal households of William Rufus (1087–1100) and Henry I (1100–35); the latter appointed him to the see of York in 1114. Thurstan had an important role in the political events of 1138, and it was largely through his efforts that it was possible to raise the English troops that defeated the Scots at the Battle of the Standard (22 August 1138). This brought security to the north of England. Thurstan was also an active supporter of monasticism in the north of England.

230

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 4

consigning to eternal Flames the King’s whole Party; as they will soon after Maud’s too, in a different Mood; then return again to the King’s side, still accompanied, if you will believe them, with celestial Powers and terrors, and still opening Paradise to all their own Associates; and Hell to all their Opponents. It is to be presumed that the Scottish Army thought their own Cause and Maud’s as just and pious as the English Army could think Stephen’s; but whether they wanted so warm an Orator as the Bishop and so sovereign an Incentive, it is certain that they were routed with infinite Slaughter; notwithstanding the signal and undaunted Bravery of the Scottish King and of his Son Prince Henry, through the whole Action. This was a seasonable Victory to Stephen, and he improved it with all Vigour. His Enemies quitted the Field so disheartened as not even to defend their strong Holds, which therefore | dropped as fast into his Hands as he could attack them. The Earl of Gloucester, the keenest and strongest Partizan against him, was scared with such rapid Acquisitions; and he, who had come on purpose to take certain Possession for Maud, found it now unsafe to stay longer himself. He therefore repassed over to her, declaring that he went to sollicit her coming, by shewing her the necessity of it. The Absence of Maud, the Flight of her best Champion, and the Consternation of the Barons, furnished the King with Leisure to pursue the Defeat of the Scotch. His March to the North and some immediate Successes there, inclined King David, fearful of venturing another Battle, to seek Peace. Stephen who was in as much Haste for Peace as he, concluded one with him, and even paid for it the Counties of Northumberland, and Huntington, surrendered to the possession of Prince Henry, Son to the Scottish King.9 In return David swore to observe a strict neutrality between him and Maud. The young Scottish Prince was such an | amiable Man, as also such a very considerable English Baron and an Earl of two Counties, accompanied the King in his Return, and by his fine accomplishments and address, intirely gained the King’s Affection, and thence became such an Object of Offence to the English Lords, that several amongst them of principal Rank, left the Court, where they made not an equal Figure, without seeing the true Cause in their own Defects, but considering the Indulgence of their own Pride to be the great Touch-stone of Favour, and even of Magna Charta. The King who surely had a manly and steddy Mind, scorning to truckle to their Humours, persisted in his Esteem for a person of such apparent Merit, and even once saved his Life at the Peril of his own. It was at the Siege of Ludlow, where a Machine let down from the Battlements would have hoisted the Prince dead or alive, to the Top, but for the desperate Interposition of the King. Hitherto the Bishops had been for the King, and would have so continued, would he have permitted them to have grasped his power, or, which is the same Thing, to have raised their own, more and more, above his, as they had | already very notably done. They had always sold their Favour dear, and were scarce ever sufficiently paid, at least sufficiently pleased with the Payment. They had in a great Measure made him King, in spite of their Oaths to the Contrary; and he, in return, had made them so many Diocesan Princes, rioting in Revenue, and secure in their Castles. He found at last, that they held and fortified and multiplied their Castles, not only for themselves but against him; and he attempted too late to redress, what he had been to slow to prevent. He now found that they were as terrible as they thought themselves inaccessible. Some of them had several Fortresses, and were building more, which they publickly maintained to be as essential to their Dignity as they were to their Security. He considered of what use they might be to Maud as well as to himself: He was informed that some of them had already engaged in her Interest; and, when he found that they would | exert their Strength against his, he began to exert his against theirs. Some of their strong Holds he took by Force, some by Stratagem, whence particularly he gained a strong Castle of his former Friend, Roger Bishop of Salisbury, a Prelate extremely rich in Treasure and Revenue, extremely learned in cancelling solemn Oaths, and extremely ungrateful to the late King, as we have already remembered. The King threatened the Bishop’s Concubine, who kept the Castle, that he would hang both

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

232

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 4

the Bishop and his Bastard, the Chancellor, unless she surrendered. She was terrified and complied. With the Treasure found there, the King wisely procured an Alliance with France, afterwards confirmed by the Marriage of his Son Eustace with Constantia, Sister to the French King. These strenuous and necessary Measures were a sore Blow to the Churchmen; though by it nothing that belonged to the Church was taken from it; nothing from Religion, but the unnatural Encumbrances of worldly Pride and Power, always found destructive to Religion: The Prelates cried aloud, and the inferior Clergy joined keenly in the Cry. It was Sacrilege to strip the Bishop of | their Usurpations, fol. 99v and God must be provoked because the Usurpers were. The bishop of Winchester particularly, Brother to King Stephen, and his first Champion, whilst he hoped under the King to govern all Things and the King too, was extremely disgusted with him, when he found that the King would not make him supreme over himself, and leave him sovereign Rule. He now set himself with all his Might and Malice to pull down the King under Pretence of relieving the Church and restoring her Rights. An imprudent Pretence, when the Church had suffered no harm, and Churchmen done so much! But the same stale and stupid Complaint will always serve out of Mouths void of Truth, to convince and transport Bigots void of Sense, both the low Vulgar and the high. The furious Prelate called a Synod (a kingly Act) and summoned the King to appear and to give an Account of his Conduct; an Act of High Treason against both the Monarch | and Monarchy itself. He fol. 100r was indeed just then exercising imperial Power and assuming Kingship, all covered and sanctified with the devout and equivocal Name of the Church.10 He made a rebellious Harangue, full of prelatical Bitterness and Arrogance, persuading the Bishops to be Traitors to their Oaths and their Prince, and naming such Treason a Vindication of the Rights of the Church and of Episcopal Dignity; so he called

2 compelled⎡lied⎤ 18 ⎡the Church⎤ 19 the ⎡her⎤ | Rights] of the Church 10

When King Stephen arrested the Bishop of Salisbury and his followers, Henry summoned his brother to his Legatine Court to explain his actions. The main reason for convening the council was to appease clerical opinion, but the charges against Stephen were dismissed. His actions were condoned, and Salisbury did not recover his castles.

The Reign of King Stephen

233

their usurped power over the Crown, Power to punish the Person of the King. The King was therefore summoned before the Bishops (lately obscure Monks and Chaplains) to answer for imprisoning Bishops taken in actual Rebellion, and guarding Castles against their King. When the Lords sent by the King to the Council, alledged that the Bishops were not punished as Bishops, but as Servants to the Crown; this was reckoned rather an Aggravation, than a Defence. They who were treating him as their inferiour, were provoked at the Stile of Servants: They denied that it was possible for them to be so in fol. 100v any Respect; and to shew their Defiance, | the Legate moved the Council to excommunicate the King, and to convey their Complaints by Deputies to the Pope. The Lords from the King then boldly told them that if they excommunicated the King, they had much more to dread than he; and whoever presumed to go to Rome, should find it difficult to return. This reasonable Menace frightened the Bishops, and they durst not incense the King by humouring the Legate. All that he could obtain was a Deputation to the King for redress of Episcopal Grievances. The principal Grievance was, that the King would not subject himself to the Bishops and humbly bear their Correction. The Legate was one of the Deputies, the ArchBishop of Canterbury another. It was impossible that the King could comply with their Claims, without disabling himself from being their King, and restoring them to be successful Rebels against himself. Had Religion any share in fol. 101r these irreligious | Claims? Or could such impious Incendiaries derive any of their Antichristian Claims from the meek Jesus and his poor Followers? They propagated War and Mischief with much more Suddenness and Success than the Others did the Gospel. They indeed pushed civil Discord and War, with miraculous Success. We must remember that the same Men, who had debauched the Nation from Maud and their Oaths, were now debauching the Nation from their Oaths to Stephen, back again to Maud: A marvellous Force of Sorcery over the Minds of Men, exercised too by the blackest Incendiaries, notorious for all Wickedness, Profaneness and Pollution! But what Eye can, or dare see, however clear sighted in itself, when sacred Craft pronounces seeing to be dangerous, and eternal Penalties frighten it from the Use of Sight. Whoever can once persuade Men

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

234

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 4

that he comes from God (a Task never found Difficult to be performed, though he were the worst of Men, and even below Man, an Ape or a Serpent) is sure to gain unmeasurable Credit amongst Men, not the less for his contradicting God’s Truth and human Sense every Day. The Bishops who were Vice Gods to | the Clergy, inflamed these, fol. 101v as these did the People. Many of the Barons, before ill affected, joined readily with them. From such full Encouragement, Maud arrived from abroad, and was received into the Castle of Arundel by the Queen Dowager,11 who being threatened with a Siege, procured from Stephen a safe Conduct for her to Bristol, whither her Brother the Earl of Gloucester was already gone, to manage her Interest in that City and those Parts. She afterwards went to Gloucester, and in both Places by all proper court and application increased her Partizans. The War was now begun and spread; a civil War, the most bitter and merciless of all others! Parties are always furious: Armed Parties are implacable. They claim the blood of one another as a Debt, and are rigorous Exacters of Payment. Both Sides not only Plunder one another; but each their own. From their Friends the Soldiers (if they will own any such, for they are apt to mistake all they | meet for En- fol. 102r emies) take what they had as a Reward for protecting them, and generally their all is too little, certainly not too much, for such kind Protectors. From their avowed Enemies they take all by right of Plunder, and do what they will with them and to them by the Right of War. Even their own Chiefs and Commanders are at their Mercy; and they despise them, or banish them, or kill them, according to their own Fears or dislikes. At best, if their Chief cannot pay them, they pay themselves, and sometimes strip him of his all, because they want it, and will even have it: Or he must indulge them in putting whole Towns and Districts to Spoil and Ransom. Nor must the most virtuous Leader punish, as he ought, the most flagrant Criminal of his own Party, for fear of driving him to the other.

22 ⎡had⎤ 31 rRansom 11

Adeliza of Leuven, who had recently remarried. Her new husband was William d’Albini, a loyal supporter of Stephen.

The Reign of King Stephen

235

What destruction avarice and the wasteful Sword could not commit, Conflagration and Vengeance did. Wherever there were two Barons of different Sides, there were two different Armies, annoying and butchering one another; every Baron was a Sovereign and a General: And the Kingdom being full of Armies, was a Field of misery, fol. 102v distress and | desolation; as well as of blood and Battles. In the midst of so much blood, one Ralph a Clergyman, contrived a Plot to butcher all the English Normans in a Body. It is likely that he had potent Prompters; for he belonged to the Bishop of Ely,12 Nephew to the Bishop of Salisbury, both desperate Traitors. The Bishop of Winchester, the pious Author of all this public Anarchy and Carnage, out of Vengeance to his own Brother, who had made him his Enemy, because he would not make him his Master and put the Sovereign Power blindly under his Direction, was only so far concerned for the national Calamity, as he found it advanced not his own Interest. He therefore made a sudden Turn, without a Blush, or any Compassion for the King, but dreading his own Ruin, with that of the King. His first Service to his Brother, who knew him too well to trust him without some substantial Service first done, as a Pledge for more, was worthy of him. He fol. 103r assembled together a good number of | Barons (all of his own Friends and Maud’s Adherents) to his Castle at Winchester, under Pretence of forming some Scheme for her Advantage. They freely trusted him, repaired to him, were all disarmed by him, and kept Prisoners till they had ordered their several fortified Places to be delivered to the King. Whatever Advantage Stephen received from this infamous Step, he was infinitely distressed, and his Affairs low and discouraging, the People disaffected, few of the Barons with him; for his chief Hopes, a small Army of Foreigners, who knowing him to be a brave Prince, proved faithful to him, though ill paid by him. He seems to have

5

10

15

20

25

30

2 Conflagrati⎡on⎤ 25 their ⎡they had⎤ 12

Nigel (c. 1100–1169) had served as Treasurer of England under Henry I, before becoming the Bishop of Ely in 1133. In 1141, Nigel, together with his brother Alexander, was one of the supporters of Matilda. After the capture of Stephen, Nigel reached an agreement with Henry of Blois to replace Stephen with Matilda on the throne. However, he eventually made his peace with Stephen.

236

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 4

been superiour to all Difficulties, animated by infinite Courage, guided by equal Prudence, and prompted by suitable Industry; trying all Measures, and multiplying Resources as fast as his Perplexities multiplied. Maud and the Earl of Gloucester were in Wallingford; Stephen hasted to besiege and take them both. As the Siege proved difficult, he turned it into a Blockade, and retired; and then they both escaped, he to Worcester, she to Lincoln. Thither Stephen | pursued fol. 103v her, sure to take her, as he had many Friends there. But there too she escaped him, by a secret Flight. He was even soon attacked by her two great Champions the Earl of Gloucester and that Earl’s Son-inLaw, the Earl of Chester.13 What deceived the King, was their Fording the Treut, which he thought imfordable. His Cavalry behaved gallantly for some Time, but at last were routed, and could not be rallied. The Infantry, unequal to unequal Foes, followed their Example, though they had Stephen at their Head exerting infinite Courage and alone for some Time a Match for an Army, and resolving never to yield. But with the Heart of a Hero, he had but the Body of a Man. No Hero in Story ever manifested more undaunted Courage; nor ever was courage more effectually tried. He would not yield to a conquering Army, nor could an Army make him prisoner, so long as he had a Weapon left, or even a Piece of a Weapon. He shivered his Battle-Axe about the Heads of his Foes. | He then drew fol. 104r his Sword, and with it defended himself, and committed the same Havock upon them, till it was broken inch by inch: With nothing but the Hilt in his Hand he still dealt Blows and scorned to surrender. He was at last knocked to the Ground with a Stone. Even then, though in the Hands of a resolute Warrior, who with a Sword at his Throat, threatened him with present Death, unless he yielded, he still refused to yield to any but the Earl of Gloucester. The Earl carried him to Maud, who ordered him to the Castle of Bristol, where the brave Prince, probably for that Cause alone, was inhumanly put in Irons.

12 Chester],. wWhat 27 Stone];. eEven 13

The Battle of Lincoln took place on 2 February 1141. Stephen’s capture was the most dramatic and unexpected event in his reign.

The Reign of King Stephen

237

The Cause of Maud now flourished, and like other prosperous Causes, was sanctified by the public Voice; as the best, when crushed, is generally condemned. Normandy owned her for their Sovereign: So did all England except the King’s few staunch Friends, chiefly confined to London and Kent. The King of Scotland, encouraged by the Times to break his last Treaty of Neutrality, again invaded the Northern Counties, on pretence of assisting her. fol. 104v Maud, with all this Success, thought | herself not safe without the Friendship and Concurrence of that formidable Timeserver, the Bishop of Winchester. She knew his Spirit, his awful Character of Legate for the Pope, his Influence with the Clergy, and his Power as well as his Bent to all public Mischief. She even repaired to him at Winchester; where after some Mock-hesitation, she so charmed him with an absolute Tender of all ecclesiastical Preferments into his Hands, that he at once renounced his Brother, declared his Zeal for her, and engaged for the Clergy. He gave her his Oath; and exacted one from her for the faithful Execution of her Engagements, otherwise he declared himself no longer bound by his. All this passed privately within Doors. The Cathedral Church was the Theatre of the subsequent Grimace. She was there received by him with great Pomp; and there he solemnly excommunicated all the King’s Adherents, then absolved all such of them as would desert him, and join the Empress Maud. fol. 105r | But since she still apprehended some Opposition from the Clergy, as more scrupulously attached to their Oaths; the Legate, who knew himself and Them better, undertook to secure them, for all their late Oaths. He therefore called a Council of the Bishops, Abbots and all the Representatives of the clerical Body, to be held at Winchester. When they met, after he had closeted his Creatures amongst them; and well sifted and supplied them in Private, he opened the Synod with a long Speech. In it he first inveighed against Stephen ‘as a Tyrant, and the first Cause of all the public Mischiefs and Misfortunes’. He owned he had sworne to him and engaged others to do so: but he had been deceived: These Engagements were no longer binding; and, with great Grief of heart, he found himself obliged to break them. The former Oath to Maud was therefore still 4 French⎡iends⎤ 12 ⎡his⎤ 24 as ⎡since⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

238

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 4

in Force, and in obeying her he did but obey the Will of his eternal Father, preferably to the Cause of a natural Brother: He had faithfully advised his Brother, admonished him, summoned him before a Synod; but all without Success or Amendment. What a blessing it was to the | Nation, that he was now in Durance, and what Calamit- fol. 105v ies the Nation had escaped by it! It was indeed a Sentence from the Lord pronounced against him. He now lay under divine Judgment, whence the greater Call upon them all, to restore the rightful Princess to the Scepter. He therefore in the Name of the Clergy, whom he said he had consulted, and whom he maintained to have a principal Share in the Election of Kings, declared, that ‘in order to put an End to the Troubles of the State, they had, upon mature Deliberation, determined to acknowledge Maud for Sovereign Queen of England’.14 Here was a bold Stroke, worthy of the Legate and the Man. What had passed in the Dark between him and his Creatures, whom he awed and governed, he declares to be an Act of the Body, without once asking their Sentiment as a Body: And from asserting a Right in Them to chuse Sovereigns, he now in their Name | and without their fol. 106r regular, much less unanimous Consent, declares that a Sovereign thus elected, makes a President for them alone to make Sovereigns. This wonderful Proceeding astonished all who were not in the Secret; but, like most other Astonishments it was a dumb one. Some were gained; some wanted presence of Mind; and most were awed. He therefore proceeded to another Piece of Deceit. He said, he had summoned the Magistrates of London, and they had promised to send their Deputies; as if he had thence been assured of their Concurrence: An Insinuation as true as the Rest. The Deputies came indeed next Day, as if sent for only to hear the transcendent Doings of the Legate and his Tools, and in Effect to give him the Lye. For they came commissioned from the City and all the Barons then there, to apply for the King’s Releasment. The Legate rebuked the Londoners for siding with the Barons, whom he (with great Assur-

4 Amendment];. wWhat 20 Consent,] he | ⎡that⎤ 21 ⎡thus⎤ | only ⎡alone⎤ 14

The clergy council of Winchester which deposed Stephen was held on 7–10 April 1141, but the Empress could not be crowned because she did not control London.

The Reign of King Stephen

239

ance) called public Disturbers. The Deputies insisted upon a direct Answer. But the Legate had determined the Affair, and would give fol. 106v no other; no more than he would | to a Letter from Christian, Stephen’s Queen,15 containing the like Petition. He would not so much as read it to the Council. The Issue of the Council was like the beginning, partial and unchristian. Their last Act was to excommunicate all the King’s Adherents. Maud’s next Pursuit was to gain the City of London, a great Point, previous and necessary to her Coronation. In her Advances towards it, she found ready Submission every where, from Reading to Oxford; from Oxford to St Albans. In the City great divisions reigned: Some were for Maud, and more for Stephen. But they who contended for Compliance with the Times, carried it. She was magnificently received there, as indeed she came greatly attended. Her Coronation was the next and only remaining Solemnity; for she was universally acknowledged as Queen of England. Stephen’s Affairs were so utterly desperate, that his Queen waited fol. 107r on Maud with a Petition for the Liberty | of his Person. She engaged in his Name ‘that he should renounce the Crown, quit the Kingdom, retire to a Monastry, pledge his solemn Oath, and even give Hostages, never to return, or seek to disturb her Right’. Maud, elated with her Prosperity and his Dejection, treated his Queen and her Petition with high Scorn, commanding the unhappy Princess never to approach her Presence more. For all this calm and apparent Settlement, fresh Revolutions are at hand; and the Man who had done so much Mischief, has the wonderful Credit to do still more. Maud disobliges the Legate. She with great Haughtiness refuses him a Suite for Eustace his Nephew. She thus convinced him how little Hopes he had to influence her Counsils, when he expected to govern them all. This was enough to satisfy the Bishop’s Conscience, that she ought not to reign, and his Rage that she should not. She herself gave him all possible help to undo

5

10

15

20

25

30

27 , and ⎡. She⎤ 29 inflxxx⎡uence⎤ 31 [[...]] ⎡Conscience⎤ | ⎡his⎤ 15

Matilda of Boulogne (c. 1105–1152), Stephen’s queen consort, led her husband’s forces after the Empress Matilda captured Stephen, and succeeded in turning the tide of events. She was also a first cousin of the Empress Matilda.

240

5

10

15

20

25

30

16

Chapter 4

herself. She was peevish, wilful and imperious. She affronted all Men and Bodies of Men; and scorned to be just, much less complaisant to any; because she fancied that she needed not. She would make no | Concessions, even where there were the best Claims. She pro- fol. 107v voked the powerful City of London by rejecting a reasonable Petition for a Grant promised them by her Father. She slighted the great Lords of the Realm; and as she treated all her Subjects as her Slaves, her Subjects all thought it Time to convince her that they were not, nor would be Slaves. The raging Legate was indefatigable by himself and his Emissaries, to form and inflame Parties against her. He laid a Plot, which must have been successful, to seize her Person, had she not fled out of the City in great Dismay. She left her Palace and Effects to the enraged Populace, who considered them as the Spoil of a defeated Enemy. She saw herself again a Fugitive, one chiefly of her own making. First she fled to Oxford, thence in equal Affright to Gloucester, for Protection from her Brother’s Power there. The Legate who was again, without Ceremony, become a good | Subject of Stephen’s out of hatred to Maud, eagerly joined fol. 108r with his Sister in Law the Queen, with Eustace her Son, and many discontented Lords, in concerting Measures for raising Forces and restoring his Brother.16 Maud informed of what passed, and indeed feeling it, marched with her Army towards Winchester, attended by the Earl of Gloucester and the Scottish King. Her design was either to frighten the Legate, or cajole him, as she had done once before. She tried the latter; and as if she had known none of his Designs, sends to him, when she came near Winchester, ‘that she had something of Moment to impart to him, and therefore desired him to come to her’. He suspected a Snare, and sent her an equivocal Answer, that he would make himself ready; then silently withdrew to his Friends. They were soon in Arms, the Kentish Men and Londoners,

After the Battle of Lincoln, Henry of Blois had found it more advantageous to support the Empress Matilda, but later came to regard her as arrogant and avid. Later in the same year, Henry held secret negotiations with his sister-in-law, and soon found himself being besieged by the Empress in Winchester, before she was finally defeated. Henry convened another legatine council in Westminster, which reinstated Stephen as king. Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, crowned Stephen in a ceremony in Canterbury at Christmas 1141.

The Reign of King Stephen

241

Queen Christian at their Head, with her Son Eustace, and William d’Ypres, a brave general of that Time. They advanced to Winchester with such expedition, that Maud, to escape certain Captivity, took refuge in the Castle. The Legate, provoked at the Civility of the Citfol. 108v izens towards her, to satisfie his sacred Vengeance, | set the City on fire, which consumed his Capital, and in it twenty Churches, besides other great Buildings; a sore Blow to Religion, but a Sacrifice to the Bishop. The Business now was to besiege the Castle; a Task the more lasting and difficult, as the Legate had before his late Flight from it, well furnished it with Stores; but a Task of infinite Concernment, since by taking it, and Maud in it, the War would be ended and Stephen restored. It was of equal Consequence to the besieged not to be taken. When therefore they were so pressed that no Hopes remained from further Defence, they agreed to make a desperate Sally to save Maud, and to open her a Passage with their Swords, through the besieged. The bold Design succeeded. They rushed through their Enemies like a Tempest, and she, however warmly pursued and beset, escaped, with the King of Scots; but the Earl of Gloucester bravely securing her Rear, was taken at a Pass, and sent to the Castle of Rochester. The fol. 109r Empress fled through Ludgershal and the Devizes, | towards Gloucester, where she at last arrived with infinite Danger and Difficulties through Ways beset with the King’s Soldiers. She was next wholly bent upon releasing her Brother the Earl, so absolutely necessary as well as dear to her, and so inseparable from her, that, though all Temptations were tried upon him, none succeeded. To recover so precious and valuable a Pledge, she agreed to have him exchanged for the King. Between the King and Maud no Agreement or Treaty was practicable. The Legate, to procure all his Doings to be consecrated by one who always consecrated the worst, obtained a Letter from the Pope, approving all his Steps in Favour of his Brother, even blaming his Slowness, and exhorting him to restore the King, furnishing him with full Power to use all Arms whatsoever, spiritual and secular, to

2 ⎡, a brave general of that Time⎤ 33 ex⎡h⎤orting

5

10

15

20

25

30

242

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 4

accomplish it.17 He therefore called a Council at Westminster; where the Pope’s Letter was read. The King was present and complained of the barbarous Usage he had received from some of his Subjects. The Legate made a pompous Speech to justifie his contradictory and continual Perjuries, and ended | it with excommunicating all the Adher- fol. 109v ents of Maud. He that made the opening Speech in the last Council, was not ashamed to contradict the former Speech by this, then to damn the Cause of his Brother, to which he had sworn; now to vindicate his Brother’s Cause, and to damn the Cause of Maud, to which he had likewise sworn. In this Council, like the last, the Legate ruled supreme, without Curb or Opposition. Besides the King’s Cause and Presence, the Pope’s Letter, and the Legate’s Sway over the Clergy, (servile Subjects of his Holiness and his Representative!) kept all their Tongues tied, and perhaps satisfied their stupid and enchanted Understandings. Only one Man in the Assembly, and he a Layman, dispatched thither by Maud, reproached the Legate publickly, and to his Face; ‘that it was by his Sollicitations the Empress had come into England; that by his Commands the King his Brother had been doomed to such barbarous | Treatment and Fetters’. Of all Reproaches, true Reproaches fol. 110r are the most bitter. The holy Incendiary made no Reply, but redoubled the Vengeance of his Heart against the Empress. The lively Spirit of Stephen soon shewed the importance of his Deliverance to the Cause. It assumed a new Face; and as his Party grew, that of Maud dwindled. Her great Champion the Earl of Gloucester, apprehensive that it would quite sink without foreign Aid, went over to her Husband the Duke of Anjou, to solicit Succours from him. Maud the while retiring to Oxford, is there besieged by the King. The Attack and Defence were both strenuous; much depending upon the Event, Stephen resolutely continued the Siege in Defiance of Frost and Snow and all the Rigours of a severe Winter. The Empress desired to capitulate; and during the Capitulation stole away by night, dressed in white, because the Ground was of the same

3 this ⎡the⎤ | ⎡he had received⎤ 24 Cause] ⎡of it⎤ 17

Until Innocent II’s death in September 1143, Stephen found the pope a reliable ally, but when Henry of Winchester’s legatine authority expired, relations with Rome became more uncertain.

The Reign of King Stephen

243

Colour. The Ice made the Thames passable to her, and she laboured many Miles on foot, through rough frosty Roads and under a furious Fall of Snow. At Abington she found the Assistance of a Horse, and fol. 110v proceeded that same Night to Wallingford. | There the Earl of Gloucester found her, and, besides the Pleasure of his own Presence and Return, though he brought her but poor Aid from abroad, presented her with a sensible Consolation in the Person of her Son, Prince Henry, a Youth of great Hopes, who had accompanied the Earl of Gloucester into England, where he had already great Views with equal Ambition and Courage. The Legate about this Time called a Council at London. In it the King made a long persuasive Speech, soothed the Bishop and Clergy, and pressed both for their vigorous Assistance towards terminating the War, so destructive to the State: ‘He himself was ready to sacrifice his Labours and his Life, but neither were sufficient without the Concurrence of his Subjects. Let those of them who could fight help him with their Persons, those who had Money, assist him with their Purse’. He assured the Church of ‘his best Protection’. Upon the fol. 111r whole, his Speech pleased them; at least it pleased | the Legate, who ruled Them; and They promised the King to assist him. The War continued, with all its Fury and terrible Consequences; and though the King daily gained ground, some Years elapsed before he recovered quiet Possession of the Crown. The Earl of Gloucester his most dangerous Enemy was dead; Maud, bereft of her chief Support, was retired to Normandy, and had conveyed thither before her Prince Henry her Son, who is soon to make a great Figure in the World, to renew the Civil War in England, and to end it, to enjoy various Fortunes, great Elevation, great Debasement, both derived from superiour Merit, and the Subjects of Praise as well as of Grief. Stephen, who by the departure of Maud and general Submission of his Subjects, thought himself at the End of his laborious Struggles, was applying himself to the improvements of Peace, and contriving to secure the Scepter to his Race. He engaged many of the Barons to swear to his Son Eustace as Heir to the Crown; though he had so remarkably seen and tried the Vanity and Impotence of such Oaths. fol. 111v Whilst he was thus busied, he was alarmed with | a new Rival, Henry 15 suffic⎡i⎤ent

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

244

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 4

just mentioned, a hopeful young Prince, ambitious and daring, the eldest Son of Maud by the Duke of Anjou. He was already in the North with David the Scottish King, his Grand Uncle, and several English Barons: Stephen marched with his usual Celerity and Vigour towards them; but they parted without staying for him. Upon Henry’s return home, he saw himself Earl of Anjou by the Death of his Father, as he was to be Duke of Normandy upon that of his Mother, and already by her Consent bears the Title. Another signal Instance of Power and good Fortune was presented him by the Stupidity of Lewis the French King, a pious Champion against the Infidels, but a miserable Politician. In the East he fancied that Eleanor his Queen had a criminal Kindness for a young Saracen, and divorced her upon his Return. As she was a great Heiress, the scrupulous Lewis, who really meant well, restored her all her spacious Dominions, several large Provinces and Cities, whence she | was fol. 112r again become a powerful Princess in her own Right over Guyenne, Saintonge and Poictou and a very tempting Choice. Henry soon made it, and married her, to the infinite Regret of the poor French Monarch, thus heavily punished for want of Foresight, and to the great Dismay of the English King, who wanted not Forecast.18 No wonder the two Monarchs soon made a Treaty to distress him. Eustace was again invested with Normandy; Geofry was set up as his Brother Henry’s Competitor for Anjou. Stephen besides his constant Vigilance over the English in General, meditated a further and particular Precaution, by crowning Eustace in his life Time, and giving him, as well as leaving him, the Throne. Henry disappointed him by an earlier Precaution. He had already engaged the Clergy, who seeing him a prospering Prince, were convinced of his Right. The Archbishop of Canterbury expressly refused to crown Eustace, and gave a saucy Reason for his Refusal, namely the Will and Direction of the Pope. He explained

4 ⎡his⎤ 17 Sainto⎡n⎤ge 18

Many rumours and legends circulated as to the cause, but what is certain is that Louis VII of France and Eleanor of Aquitaine became estranged during the voyage to the Second Crusade. Their marriage may largely have failed because they had no male heir. The Pope granted an annulment in March 1152, on the grounds of consanguinity. A few months later, at the age of 19, Henry married Eleanor at Poitiers.

The Reign of King Stephen

245

the Pope’s Motives; for that the Father having broke his Oath and usurped the Kingdom, his Holiness would not permit the Son to be fol. 112v crowned: provoking Assurance | and Falshood! as if the Pope had ever discouraged Usurpation, or the Bishops boggled at Perjury. The King was justly provoked, but did an unjust Thing. He confined the Bishops all together in one Place, with Design to make them comply. The Archbishop escaped to the rising Sun, Prince Henry in Normandy, and the King was disappointed. His next Recourse was to send over Eustace into Normandy, to join the French and distress Prince Henry there, as Henry’s Brother Geofry did in Anjou. But Henry having with surprizing Activity and Valour driven Geofry out of Anjou, had the Address to bring the French to an Accommodation; and they stripping Eustace of their Succour, drove him too from Normandy. Eustace at his return found his Father besieging Wallingford, a strong Fortress, so hard to be taken, that before he could reduce it, Henry, for whom it was kept, brought over a small Army, had many Castles surrendered to him by many Barons, and then advanced to fol. 113r besiege the Besiegers; so that both they and the | besieged laboured under equal Streights. A Battle seemed unavoidable, and must have been a bloody one. Both Leaders were eager for it: Henry wanted to conquer; Stephen scorned to be conquered. The Armies were as determined as their Leaders. One of them would not be starved tamely: The other would not be disgraced by a Retreat, which might have been followed by a Defeat, fatal to his Cause just beginning to flourish. The timely Interposition of a worthy English Lord, the Earl of Arundel, averted the Combat, which might have proved tragical to both sides, certainly fatal to the Nation; which, having lost so much of its best Blood, besides the other Calamities of War for so many Years, was near seeing the rest Shed, all sacrificed to the Ambition of two Princes, who in seeking to govern it, ought to consult the Preservation of it, and to save it from more Destruction, by a Treaty however hurtful to both. It was the part of Christians, it was the Duty fol. 113v and Glory | of Princes. This was his Argument, and he urged it with great Freedom and Force: It was a popular Argument, from a popu35 the Agreement ⎡his Argument⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

246

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 4

lar Man and his Friend; and Stephen found it not safe to slight it, however he might disrelish it. He consented that an Accommodation should be proposed to the Duke of Normandy. The Duke, breathing nothing but War, and just advancing to Battle, was loth to consent, but durst not oppose the earnest Cry of so many English Lords for Peace, and agreed to an Interview with Stephen. They met on the opposite Banks of the Thames, and came to a Truce. During the Truce died Eustace, who foreseeing no Good to himself from it had retired. Not long before his Mother had left the World; and Stephen sensibly mourned the Loss of his Queen and Son. He had more and more Cause of Affliction from the open and almost general Defection of the Barons. They who first hurt you, are the last to forgive you. Most of them had given him Proofs of Disaffection and rather would disable him from | Reigning, than see him fol. 114r Reign to their Terror. Besides, they were sure of Sanctuary from the Duke, and made a Merit to him of their Disloyalty to the King. Stephen had indeed punished one or two of them, who were no more guilty, though sooner detected, than the rest, who conscious of the same guilt, feared the same detection. The Accommodation proceeded very slowly. There were momentous Difficulties in the Way. Stephen wanted his Son William, for his Successor; a Preference upon which Henry insisted to himself and claimed great Merit and Moderation in suffering Stephen to be King during Life. Henry had indeed many Advantages, as the King well saw, and he himself equal Discouragements, the Duke’s Youth and natural Claim to the Crown, his signal Character and Abilities, his great Power abroad, his great popularity in England, a revolting Nobility, a turbulent Clergy. The King therefore agreed to the Duke’s Terms, adopted him for his Son, who in return did Homage to this his King and Father. Poor Prince William did the like to the Duke as Successor to his | Father. The Duke as a Compensation (if any thing fol. 114v be a Compensation for a Crown) bound himself to support William

18 less ⎡more⎤ 21 Stephe⎡n⎤ 24 [[...]] ⎡Henry⎤

The Reign of King Stephen

247

in all the Estates of the Family and all his Grants from the Crown; spacious Territories and a very princely Provision.19 The Treaty was solemnly ratified in the Presence of all the Lords spiritual and temporal. The People, so long the miserable sport and prey of War, exulted to see the amiable Return of Peace. The Successor was created Justiciary of England, a Dignity next to the Throne; then retired into Normandy, there to remain till the Death of the King should call him to the Throne itself. It is said his Departure was hastened by the Machinations of Prince William against his Life. The King survived not the Treaty quite a Year. During that short Space he manifested a princely Capacity, as well as a fatherly Spirit, in recalling and encouraging all the Blessings of Peace, and healing all the national Wounds from the War. He was naturally able, humane and brave, and formed to be as great and amiable a Prince as r fol. 115 ever wore a Crown. He | could have reigned gloriously, and would, had he been suffered. Times and Conjunctures were against him, with Falshood of some, the Malice of others, the Bigotry of the People, the Pride and Impiety of those who directed Bigots. His Successor, with all the Talents of a King and a Hero, with all the Accomplishments of Stephen, was not equal to maintain a Conflict with the then Craftsmen, the Sons of Darkness, as will soon be seen. Stephen had as good an original Right as his Competitress; since the Crown was then held chiefly from national Consent, which furnished him with an Argument against the Ties of Oaths; Ties which rarely prevail when the Trial and Decision depend upon Force. William the Conqueror robbed a Crown, and to quiet his Conscience, or humour his Policy, but chiefly that out of so great Iniquity the Church of Rome might reap great Proffit, the Pope consecrated the Robbery, and William, who, like the Pope, would make any Promise to gain his Ends, in order to get it, submitted to hold it of his Holi-

5

10

15

20

25

30

6 ⎡to⎤ 23 He ⎡Stephen⎤ 19

In November 1153, Henry and Stephen signed the Treaty of Wallingford (also known as the Treaty of Winchester). The terms were that Stephen would remain king until his death, William was to inherit all of his baronial lands, and Henry would be nominated (adopted) as Stephen’s son and heir, effectively ending the dispute over the English throne and the ensuing civil war. Stephen died in 1154, and Henry II became king.

248

Chapter 4

ness; but when he had got it, would not keep his Word. William left it to his second Son, of all the three Sons the least worthy of it. His third Son usurped it from the eldest, and left it to his Daughter, without Regard to his Nephews. Stephen one of them, and the 5 youngest | seeing this no Rule of Succession, seized it himself, and fol. 115v had not a worse Claim than the Rest: He had rather superior Concurrence from the Nation. The Usurpation of his Grandfather, and all the Reigns since, little better than Usurpations, had with other infinite Evils, introduced crying Perjuries, the constant Effects of 10 forced Oaths. They prevailed the more hideously, because the Example of the Clergy and the Approbation of the Pope constantly hallowed them, let them be ever so notorious and contradictory. Could Antichrist, or the Apostles of Antichrist have done more to extirpate Religion and Virtue, to spread Barbarity, poyson the World 15 with dissolute Morals and a reprobate Spirit, or to fill it with Apostacy and Confusion? To the praise of King Stephen, he strove to check the Tyranny of Rome and of Churchmen, who therefore laboured to overturn him and his Power, because he would not meanly submit to theirs.

Chapter 5

The Reign of Henry the Second fol. 117r I am going to recount the Reign of a Prince, who, though he began it

early, had before distinguished himself by his Abilities to wear, as well as to win, and even to adorn a Crown. Perhaps no Reign better merits the Attention of English Readers. They will be surprised to see so brave a Warrior, so able a Politician, the most potent Prince in Christendom, struggling with a Creature of his own raising, a rebellious Fanatic, labouring, under the Countenance of the Pope, to exalt himself above his Sovereign, and to make the Priesthood direct, or rather abolish Kingship: English Readers will justly applaud their own happy Lot from the Change of Times; rejoice that no spiritual Jugler can now, as then, scatter Darkness, Imposture, and Firebrands, and exercise Tyranny; that no false Prophet can deceive them, no fol. 117v lying Terrors frighten them, no aspiring Enthusiast | master them: They will perceive that none but such who dare judge for themselves, can be Free; as all who judge not for themselves, must be Slaves; that a violent Death was but natural to an untameable Incendiary and Traitor; and that it was therefore Defying the Almighty and Laughing at him, to subject his Representative upon Earth to the Censure and Vengeance of miserable Monks, the Executioners appointed by their Brother and Head at Rome, to humble the Sovereigns of the Earth with Rods and the Discipline of the Cloyster!

4 ⎡, and even to adorn⎤ 12 Darkness,] and | ⎡and⎤ 18 ⎡that⎤ 22 ⎤ [[...]] ⎤

5

10

15

20

14 – 15 them];: ⎡They will perceive⎤

250

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 5

A Fact so incredible, that had it not been handed down in constant Records by Monks themselves, it would pass for Romance invented to blacken Churchmen. Indeed most of their other Acts sound not less fabulous, though most tragically true, yet many of them justified, some confidently denied by them and their Dupes, who are blindly led, and never suffered to doubt or disbelieve. They are taught even to contradict events the most notorious and national; not only the | Gunpowder Plot, and the Burnings in Queen fol. 118r Mary’s Reign, but even the dreadful and universal Massacre of Ireland. I have met with many English Papists, who either never heard of it, or denied it all. For, their Priests do not think it safe here in England to maintain the Doctrine of Fire and Faggot, even amongst their own Followers; a Doctrine preached universally where they dare, and practised avowedly wherever they can. Can there be a worse Sign, a more abject Character of any Religion, than that it flies Truth, and relies upon Frauds and Forgeries. Surely, without Truth there can be no Religion; no more than without God, who glories in the Title of the God of Truth.(a) Henry found his way to the Throne very clear and uncontested. By his Mother he sprang from the old Saxon Kings: He was, by Treaty and Adoption, next Heir to King Stephen. The Lords had, in Stephen’s Time, owned him for Stephen’s Successor, and even became Sureties for his Succession: He had already gained Admiration and Popularity by his Courage and | other rare Qualities. There was none fol. 118v to dispute his Title, but a Prince of small Hopes, William Son to the late King: Besides such a Dispute would have been very desperate. He was already one of the most potent Princes in Europe, by his great Dominions abroad, Normandy, Guienne, Poictou, Touraine, Saintonge, Maine and Anjou; and, by the Accession of this great Kingdom, seems to have been the first Prince in his Time. So that he appeared in a pleasing Light to his People, as he did in an awful one

(a)

It is worth observing what fallacious Pamphlets they give about to their Pupils and others, by equivocal words and reserves seeming to disown many of their scandalous, but false Opinions. Thus they deny with a Curse, a breaden God; because when the Wafer is consecrated, it is no longer Bread, but God himself. Was there ever more dirty Prevarication, etc. I have seen a whole Book full of the like pious Fallacies.

3 Yet ⎡Indeed⎤ 6 who] [[...]] 21 ⎡King⎤

The Reign of Henry II

251

to his Neighbours. No wonder that his Coronation was pacific, and he at full Leisure to repair the Breaches made in the Realm by the late Course of Convulsions. He began at the Root, by demolishing the Harbours of Faction, the Castles of the Barons and Bishops, erected in the late Reign. The Bishop of Winchester had no less than six; all which the King seized as forfeited, for his going beyond Sea without Leave.1 His next measure was equally wise and popular, by r fol. 119 dismissing the Foreign Forces of the last King, | desperate Men, who considered not the King so much to be their Master, as his People to be their Enemies; and chusing rather to recompense themselves by Plunder, than to satisfy themselves with Pay, did much more Mischief to the Kingdom than Service to the King. Thus far what he had done, though he amply found his own Interest in it, yet as it was beneficial to all, pleased all. What followed, as it seemed of no public Benefit, was resented as selfish, and an Act of Violence aggravated by the fair Name of Justice. He resumed all the Lands and Titles granted by his Predecessors, without any new or late Forfeiture by Treason, but under a general Plea, or rather Pretence, that they had been robbed from the Crown, and thither he would restore them. Neither made he any Difference between the Adherents of his own Mother Maud and those of King Stephen; a cruel Impartiality and bitterly resented. Nor did he except William of Blois, Stephen’s Son; though by the same Articles that made Henry Successor to the Crown, William was to enjoy all the Grants and Territories which he then held from King Stephen his fol. 119v Father. Henry’s Argument, ‘that the | despoiled Barons had aided an Usurper’, was an Argument furnished by the Wantonness of Power and Possession, and might have been turned against him by any Pretender to his Crown, especially by this very William, whose Father

5

10

15

20

25

9 ⎡to be⎤ 9 – 10 ⎡to be2⎤ 21 ⎡own⎤ 1

After his castles and palaces were confiscated in 1155, Henry of Blois retired to Cluny. However, he returned to England about three years later, becoming a kind of elder-statesman at court. Henry adopted an independent stance during the Becket controversy, supporting him at Northampton in 1164, regardless of the King’s resentment. Although Henry disapproved of Becket’s extremism, because he backed the Papal arbitration of 1166–67, the Bishop of Winchester ensured the Archbishop remained solvent during his exile and kept him informed about political affairs back in England.

252

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 5

had long worne it, and long treated this very Henry as a Pretender. But present Prosperity sees only the Proffit, not the Wrong of its Proceedings, and reckons it may do whatever it can do. Henry saw such vast Advantages in these Changes, that he concluded them just, because they were proffitable. This bold Step in the King, so pernicious to some, so alarming to all, and so threatning to himself, was wisely qualified, and its terror abated, by a Step very opposite and popular. In a Convention of the States at Wallingford, He confirmed, of his own free Motion, the Great Charter and the Laws of Edward the Confessor. Thus tempering his Reign, ballancing public Terror with public Benevolence, and providing for public Tranquillity by the Spirit and Steadiness of his Administration, | he settled his Council at Home, his Mother Maud fol. 120r (softened into Meekness by Adversity) at the Head of it, then went over to visit his Dominions in France, and to do Homage for them to the French King, who, though a Sovereign, was scarce superior to his Vassal, even in his own Kingdom. Whilst he was in France he recovered Anjou from his Brother Geoffry then in Possession of it by Virtue of his Father’s Will, which Henry had sworn to see fulfilled, but was now released from his Oath by a Dispensation of the Pope, the eternal and ready Instrument to prostitute the Name of God to justify and cancel Perjury. As Geofry soon after died possessed of Nantz, Henry seized it as Heir to his Brother: He even gained the Succession of Britain by a Marriage between his Son Geofry, not a Year old, and the Duke of Britain’s Daughter.2 That Duke dying a few Years after, young Geofry became Duke of Britain, where his Father ruled in his name. Henry had still further Claims in France: In some he succeeded. For others he had occasional Quarrels, and even a short War with France. It may be reckoned an Instance of his good Fortune, that William de Blois Son to King Stephen died in two Years after his arrival with | the King in fol. 120v France.3 He had some Time before, by an advantageous Peace with

11 Love ⎡Benevolence⎤ 2 Geoffrey Plantagenet (1158–86) and Constance of Penthièvre, the hereditary duchess of Brittany, married in July 1181. 3 William de Blois, count of Boulogne and earl of Surrey, died in front of the gates of Toulouse in 1159. He had no children.

The Reign of Henry II

253

the King of Scotland, recovered Carlisle, New Castle and other important Places, which Stephen, in his Distress, had given up to that King, who now was content with the Earldom of Huntington only, which had been the Inheritance of Prince Henry, his Father. The Welsh gave him some trouble, but were soon brought to Peace, though their first Advantages in the War were signal, as were the Disasters of the King’s Army. But his Fleet terrified them; and they not only gave up some strong Holds, which they had seized during the Civil Wars in England, but agreed to his opening Passages into their Country, by cutting down their Woods. No English Prince had ever been so powerful; no Prince since the Conquest established in such Tranquillity, or found himself so feared and esteemed at home and abroad, or possessed so equally the Affecfol. 121r tions of both English and Normans. | But when from the Peace and Glory of his Reign, Henry might with great Grounds have hailed his own Soul, as well as his Subjects, with Peace and Joy, and expected Halcyon Days; He found his Government distressed, his Soul perplexed, his Reign disgraced and his Throne shaken, his People alarmed and their Allegiance undermined, nay Kingdom and People threatened to be rent from him: He saw all this mighty Storm raised by one of his own Subjects, a Creature of his own raising, Thomas Becket, the Son of a Citizen of London, by a Saracen Woman,4 first a Lawyer, then a Priest, and from the low Estate of an Archdeacon, exalted by the extreme partiality of the King, to be Lord High Chancellor of England, and entrusted with the most important Negociations: then, as if nothing in the King’s Power could match his Favour for Becket, he made him Archbishop of Canterbury, throwing as it were at once into his hands the civil and ecclesiastical Administration. The wisest Princes are often unwary in the choice of their Favourites. The King’s mother, the Nobility, all the dignified Clergy, and indeed the voice of the Kingdom, were against the Promotion of Becket.

5

10

15

20

25

30

2 thea| t | 20 him];: hHe 28 – 31 ⎤ The wisest ... Becket.⎤ 4 A romantic legend had it that the mother of Thomas Becket (c. 1118–70), English Chancellor and Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry II, was a Saracen princess who followed his father, a pilgrim or crusader, back from the Holy Land. She reputedly travelled the length and breadth of Europe, repeating the only English words she knew, ‘London’ and ‘Becket’, until she found him.

254

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

Henry first made him a Minister from an Opinion of his Parts and Ability, and found him so absolutely devoted to his Master’s Pleasure, that whilst to all other Men his Haughtiness and vain Pomp of Life were intollerable, he devoted | himself to the King’s fol. 121v Will and to all his Measures, without Scruple or Limitation. Judging therefore what he would be, from what he was and had been, the King, who found the Encroachments and vile Morals of the Clergy destructive to Government, scandalous to Religion and pernicious to Society, and intending to check their infamous Career, thought he could not trust to a better Manager, or a more devoted Instrument, than Becket, to reform the Excesses of the Clergy. They had indeed overleaped all Bounds, and acted as if, in all their Doings, they had been not only independent upon the Crown and the Law, but above both; and whilst they were treating the Laity with the utmost Scorn and without Mercy, and turning every trivial Offence into unpardonable Crimes; the most heinous Crimes that they could commit themselves, their Felonies, Barbarities and Murders, were treated by themselves as slight Offences, and subjected to the slightest Punishments, if punished at all. The King, upon Inquiry into | the monstrous Inequality of Lay fol. 122r and Clerical Proceedings in Cases criminal, discovered, by full Proof, that since his Accession to the Crown (but a few Years!) above an hundred Murders had been committed by Ecclesiastics, yet none of the Murderers so much as degraded from their Orders; the usual tender Punishment enjoined by the ecclesiastial Canons. Nay the Clergy, even the Bishops, who were the first, and ought to have been the best of them, were so far from being ashamed of such impious Partiality, and Remissness in all christian and moral Duties, and so hardened even in Cases of Blood, that they gloried in such inhuman, such antichristian indulgence to their bloody and godless Brethren. The whole of Religion was by them confined to the Immunities, the Opulence and the Oppressions of the Clergy; all exclusive of Christianity, but all Essential to spiritual Faction and the Domination of the Priesthood; which, whenever it engages in worldly Pursuits, renounces Religion for Party, such incurable Party, that the best Men amongst them (and doubtless in the worst Times there were some

2 ⎡Master’s⎤ 7 ill ⎡vile⎤ 24 his ⎡their⎤ 26 ⎡even⎤ | are ⎡were⎤ 35 [[...]] ⎡that⎤

The Reign of Henry II

255

few Good) dare not attempt, or encourage an Attempt to reform the fol. 122v rest, for fear of being worried, perhaps finally murdered | by the Rest,

at best, of being traduced as Traitors to the Cause, blackened with Obloquy, and hunted down by the merciless Cry of Faction, ecclesiastial Faction, the most furious and slanderous of all others. Who can stand the Uproar of raging Bigots, equally interested and enchanted? Are such ever likely to correct themselves, or to suffer others to correct them? He who haunts the Altar only for the Offerings upon the Altar, is not likely to come into any Scheme for lessening these Offerings, much less for abolishing them. Will he believe you, when you tell him, what the Holy Ghost has told them all, that a pure Heart (by which he is to get nothing) is the most acceptable Offering? And are not the most corrupt Affections, abounding in Superstition and producing gainful Offerings, much more likely to procure his holy Love and Benediction? When things are upon this impious, orthodox Foot, here is an ample Field, an fol. 123r inviting Opportunity, for any ambitious crafty Knave, who can | cant well, as all crafty Knaves can, to gain Popularity with the Herd of holy Partizans, and become their successful Leader, especially if he be bold and lawless enough to be entitled to the Gallows and Saintship. Becket had been long a great Deceiver, a Deceiver of his Master and Creator. In order to gain the highest Trust of all, he so effectually deceived the King, that the King thought him the fittest for it, and by parting with it to him, had nigh parted with his Crown, and set up a Monarch over himself, more holy than himself, and therefore more to be reverenced and obeyed. He had long known the King’s Resentment of the Enormities of the Clergy and his steady Resolution to correct them, and by his unvaried Complaisance to the King, or rather by his blind Compliance with him, in whatever he said, did or proposed, the King concluded him to be he ablest and readiest Instrument for correcting the Excesses and restraining the boundless Usurpations of Churchmen, and with this View set him at the head of the Church. Upon this Exaltation, Becket quickly convinced him, what a supple Hypocrite he had been, and that his constant Course of Com-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

3 ⎡of⎤ 4 with ⎡by⎤ 20 ⎡to be entitled [[...]] to the Gallows and Saintship⎤ 23 | t |he ⎡King2⎤ 29 said,] or

256

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 5

plaisance had been but a Course of Deceit. | He first startled the fol. 123v King by returning him the Great Seal, and relinquishing the Court. To this Surprize upon the King he added another and a greater: He who, in Grandeur and Equipage, and in all the Display of Power and Vanity, had exceeded all the Courtiers and Subjects of his Time, suddenly renounced all Pomp, dismissed his Train, entertained few Domestics, wore the simple Habit of a Monk, with a Shirt of Sack-cloth, and lived under all the austere Discipline of the Cloister; in order that, the Character of a Saint, strengthening the Authority of the Archbishop, might endear him to Bigots (who were the Clergy and the Many) and render his spiritual Power awful to the civil Power. He soon gave a glaring Sample of this his Spirit. Philip de Broc, a Canon of the Church of Bedford, was tried for Murder, and so clearly convicted of it, that he was condemned for it; but as he was tried in the Archbishop’s Court, his Person was more favoured than his Guilt was abhorred: He was only deprived, and confined to a Monastry, where he was | sure of living well.5 fol. 124r The King taking Advantage of a Sentence so scandalous, and a Judgment so unequal, thought, by exposing and disgracing it, to shame the Archbishop out of it, at least from justifying it. He reasoned with Becket against it, and in a pathetic Stile. To his amazement, Becket far from Shame, still farther from Compunction, deliberately and confidently called his own Partiality to the Murderer, the privilege of a Churchman, asserted the Lives and Immunities of the Clergy to be cognizable only by the Clergy, and disowned any Authority over them, but their own. He even maintained, that no Clergyman could forfeit his Life for any Crime whatsoever. This bold Declaration, full of Contradiction and Treason, might well alarm and provoke the King; as it was telling him, ‘that he was not King of the Clergy, and could not try, much less punish a Clergyman for Treason’. Henry told Becket, with great Spirit, that, ‘as he was God’s Minister, he was obliged to punish all Malefactors, without exception, and

3 of ⎡upon⎤ 8 ⎡in order⎤ 11 ⎡Power2⎤ 23 ⎡own⎤ 5

Philip de Brois was accused of murdering a royal officer but was acquitted by the court of the Bishop of Lincoln.

The Reign of Henry II

257

knew not how Criminals amongst the Clergy could claim any; since the Almighty was likely to be most offended with guilty Pastors, who fol. 124v were to be Instructors and Examples to all | others, and when they offended, deserved to be more rigidly punished than any others. He would therefore, as became a Sovereign, order all signal Crimes, such as Murder, Robbery, and other heinous Acts of Violence, even in the Ecclesiastics, to be tried no longer in ecclesiastical Courts, which were so notoriously partial to the most criminal Ecclesiastics, but in his own Courts, where they should be subjected to proper Punishments’. Becket replied, ‘that he would suffer no Ecclesiastic to be tried but at an ecclesiastical Tribunal, where they should be punished according to ecclesiastical Rules; nor ought they to be punished again by the King’s Judges; one punishment being sufficient for one Offence’. He had not the Candour to own, that a Criminal Clergyman was the worst Criminal, as the King had justly alledged, and that it was a Mockery of Justice, to inflict gentle Correction for crying Iniquity. Becket, not satisfied with thus insulting Majesty, and affronting r fol. 125 the | indispensible Laws of Society, as if he had studied to raise and aggravate the King’s Resentment, upbraided him, ‘with violating the Rights of the Archbishopric, in detaining from him the strong Castle of Rochester’; as if it had been fitter to be held by a Clergyman than a King. But it was Becket ’s great aim to dispute the Sovereignty with his Sovereign, or rather to wrest it from him. He was therefore so far from being concerned for having roused the King’s Rage, that he studied how to pique and mortify him still more: He had the Assurance to cite the Earl of Clare, to do him homage, as his Vassal, for the Castle of Tunbridge, though the Earl held it of the King, as he justly pleaded: Nor could Becket answer his Plea. For by dropping his Claim, which he had made without once deigning to represent it to the King, he plainly meant to usurp what he could not recover. His next attempt to make a Quarrel, was another Usurpation more stifly maintained: He pretended to bestow the Rectory of Ainsford 6 upon one Laurence, a Priest, in direct violation of the Right of the Patron, who was a Baron of England. The Baron, in Vinfol. 125v dication of his Right, refused to admit Laurence to take | possession. 6

Eynsford.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

258

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

Becket, who construed every Act of Self-defence, which contradicted his Pride, to be Treason against God, surrendered the Baron to Satan, or, in other Words, excommunicated him. This was a direct assault upon the King’s Prerogative, which exempted all the King’s principal Tenants from the Sentence of Excommunication, without first acquainting the King; a Prerogative that Becket wanted to wrest from the King, and adding the Mockery of God to the Mockery of Justice, would hide and sanctify Fraud by a prostitute Cloak of Religion. The King saw with sensible Grief and Mortification, his favourite reforming Scheme baffled by a Stubborn Man, whom he had exalted on purpose to assist him in it, but who now appeared bent to cross and plague, and every way to distress, his Prince and Benefactor. He saw him at the head of the Clergy, their great Darling by protecting them in their Vices, recommending himself to the Pope by | a lawless fol. 126r Zeal for the Hierarchy, and big with a Design to make the Crown truckle to the Mitre; a Design which would infallibly encourage the whole Body of Churchmen to despise their King, when they found that their Primate defied him. He had used all Means to gain him, tried to awe and frighten him, to sooth and mollify him; all to no purpose: The wilful Prelate seemed resolved to be neither terrified nor obliged. Such a Primate at the head of such a Clergy, he aspiring, they immoral, both He and They very interested and very imperious, both expecting to be humoured in all their Caprices, to be indulged in their Vices, to have their Persons reverenced in Spite of their scandalous Lives, ministered to the King sufficient Matter of Reflection, and called for all his Resolution. The short Question seemed to be, which of the two should govern England and one another, the Monarch or the Prelate. Henry was in possession of Power and determined to hold it: Becket wanted it, and seemed resolved to have it. The King assembled a great Council of Lords, temporal and spiritual, and to them represented ‘the public Grievances, how manifest | and crying they were, how ready he was to redress them, and fol. 126v how imperiously the Archbishop opposed all Reformation, where it

The Reign of Henry II

259

was chiefly wanted’.7 He told them, ‘how much the daring and dangerous Spirit of the Archbishop ought to alarm them. They had seen the ill Behaviour, they had felt the Insolence and Oppression of the Clergy, who must grow more and more enormous, if they were never to be punished for their Enormities. They had got a Prelate at their Head, who professedly fostering them in their Crimes, even the crying Crimes of Blood, successfully encouraged them to be Criminals, and to defy all Law, since no Law was to reach their Guilt. They could not but observe the untameable Ambition of the Archbishop, and that such haughty and desperate measures, under the abused Name of Religion, would, without their timely Prevention, swallow every Prerogative of the Crown’. Most of the temporal Lords were fully convinced, or rather fol. 127r wanted no Conviction: They had | all experienced the Insolence and overbearing Spirit of the Man, and in Judgement as well as Inclination thirsted to see him humbled. They had the same Passion, because the same Motives, for humbling the Clergy in general, who were daily giving shocking proofs of their Pride and Avarice, daily striving to ride upon the Necks of the Nobility; as if the Sound of the Gospel could warrant the worst Passions, and hallow the worst Men, who were so far from being akin to the Gospel, that it renounced Them, as They did it. The Concurrence and Alacrity of the Lords encouraged the King to propose, for a present Remedy, certain Institutions of his Grandfather Henry’s, such as tended directly to check the Encroachments of the Clergy and to baffle their domineering Spirit. The principal articles were ‘that no Man should appeal to Rome without the King’s Consent: That no Archbishop or Bishop should go to Rome upon

5

10

15

20

25

6 p⎡r⎤ofessedly 26 – 27 First ⎡The principal articles were⎤ 28 Secondly, tThat 7

At the Council of Westminster in 1163, Henry asserted that, following their trial and conviction in the ecclesiastical courts, ‘criminous clerks’ should then be punished by the secular authorities. Becket refused to acknowledge this claim, and persuaded the other bishops to add the qualification ‘saving our order’ to their assent to the king’s demand that they swear obedience to the ‘ancient customs’ of the kingdom. Becket later dropped this reservation as a result of pressure from Pope Alexander III. The following year Henry codified these customs (including the claim regarding ‘criminous clerks’) in the Constitutions of Clarendon, and although Becket declined to sign them, he did give his oral assent.

260

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

any Citation from the Pope, without a License from the King: That none of the King’s Tenants in Chief, and none of the King’s Officers, should be subject to Excommunication, or their Lands to an Interdict, without the King’s | Consent: That all Clergymen whosoever, fol. 127v charged with capital Crimes, should be tried in the King’s Courts and that the Laity, whether King or Subject, should hold Pleas concerning Churches, Tithes, and the like ecclesiastical Process’. These Institutions were at once approved by all the temporal Lords, judged extremely pertinent, and worthy to be received and enforced. The Prelates refused to concurr, without a Clause added, saving the Rights and Privileges of the Church and Clergy; a Clause which would have eluded the Force of the whole. The King might well say, as he did, justly and with great warmth, that Poyson lurked in that captious Exception: He insisted on an absolute and explicite Compliance. The Archbishop replied that, ‘they had not sworn even Allegiance, without a Saving for the Prerogative of their Order, and would never bind themselves to the Observance of any Laws, without the same Reserve’. To this Evasion all his | Brethren stuck: fol. 128r The King left them in a Chafe and without a Farewel, with high Menaces, that he would effectually abase their Pride. They knew his high Spirit and were frightened. Nor did they part before they agreed to send Deputies after him, ‘to implore his Pardon and to assure him that they were ready to comply with his Will’. They all came immediately into this Resolution, except Becket, who strongly struggled against it, and would no more promise it than he intended to perform it, till the unanimous Cry and Tears of the rest forced him to acquiesce. He then authentically consented to the Institutions, without the Saving Clause, as did all his Brethren after him. This News and the respectful Deputation, Becket at the Head of it, pleased the King exceedingly. What he now feared was the subtle and shifting Spirit of Becket, a mortal Foe to whatever restrained his extravagant Claims and Ambition; lest he might plead, that the Institutions could not be binding as not recommended and warranted by a competent Authority, being the Injunctions only of a large Council. He therefore called an Assembly of the States, in order to

1 Thirdly, tThat 4 Fourthly, tThat 6 . Fifthly ⎡and⎤ 9 Lords,] and 14 Exception];: 19 ⎡a2⎤ 20 de⎡a⎤base 25 en⎡in⎤tended 27 ⎡then⎤

The Reign of Henry II

261

fol. 128v give them the due Sanction of Laws. This was the famous | Parlia-

ment of Clarendon, the first in England that curbed the Tyranny and restrained the Usurpations of a very debauched, very domineering Priesthood. Here the Institutions were solemnly confirmed, frankly by all the Lay-Lords, aukwardly by the Prelates, who offered many Scruples, but durst not refuse. Becket was extremely stiff and negative, but by importunate Sollicitation and the Example of his Brethren, conformed in Words, with an ill Grace. The King having thus gained the Consent of the Prelates, insincere and halting as it was, to these his Ordinances of so much Importance to his Government and People, resolved to secure them a current Authority by a Bull from the Pope. For such was the blind Infatuation of the Times, that an old Friar transformed, by cant Words and Legerdemain, into an Idol, was complimented with Omnipotence; to the Shame of Reason, and the Vassallage of Christendom. He concluded that the Pope would at least seem to fol. 129r approve | what the Bishop had ratified, and that the Pope’s Approbation would cure all Tenderness in the Consciences of the Prelates and prevent a Relapse, such as they were usually subject to. But the Pope, as slippery as infallible, and ill digesting these restraining Laws against Churchmen, especially where his own Interest was threatened, condemned the Institutions as detrimental to the Church. Nor need the Reader be surprized to hear that this very Pope had, a little while before, upon different Views and Fears, sent a Legate in form to order Becket to submit to the King, nay to submit to his Laws without Exception.8

5

10

15

20

25

20 ⎡these⎤ 8

The Constitutions of Clarendon were, for the most part, an accurate expression of the customs governing relations between church and state in the reign of the king’s grandfather, Henry I. Several of the practices were, however, at odds with canon law, and the pope now refused to approve them. This strengthened Becket’s resolution, and he publicly affirmed that he had committed perjury at Clarendon. In October 1164, the archbishop was summoned to the Council of Northampton to answer charges of having misappropriated funds in the period when he was chancellor. There, in a heated session, he openly breached two clauses of the Constitutions: he denied that the council had jurisdiction over him and he appealed to the pope. Becket fled to France immediately afterwards, where Louis VII took him under his protection. By 1170, the pope was seriously considering the possibility of excommunicating the whole of Britain, and he

262

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 5

The Pope’s Refusal recalled all Becket ’s Tenderness and Scruples: He openly declared his grievous Remorse for having signed the Constitutions of Clarendon, which were too much to the Advantage of the Nation ever to appear tolerable to the Clergy, who were the blind Followers of Becket, as Becket was of the Pope, the irreconcilable Enemy to Society and the Deity. Becket had now a new plausible Part to act; such a one as would bring disgrace upon the Constitutions, expose the King to the Hate of Bigots, and gain high Praise | and Popularity to himself from all fol. 129v such as himself. He had committed a heinous Sin against his Order and his Pride, in submitting to Laws so beneficial to his Country, and could not reconcile himself to his own Favour, or to the Pope, without doing some open and signal Penance. He therefore forbore for some Weeks from the Exercise of his archiepiscopal Duty, and called this Mockery of God and the Law (for he still kept possession) an Atonement for his Crime. The Pope already charmed with his rebellious Behaviour and Recantation, readily absolved him from the terrible Guilt of having acted like a good English-man, encouraged him in his seditious Practices, and promised him all support. Nor did Becket fail in meriting such devout and iniquitous Countenance; for he seemed to value himself upon insulting the King and defying all public Justice. The King in vain tried all Methods to mortify his proud Spirit, and indeed had many fair Advantages | against him. A String of Ac- fol. 130r cusations followed: He was tried and convicted for having usurped a Manor which belonged to one of the Barons; and, besides Restitution, he was fined a large Sum. He was next charged with two heavy Crimes, one of them sacrilegious, both capital; first, ‘that he had converted to his own Profit and Use the Revenue of the Archbishoprick of York, of which he had the Management, when he was Chancellor; secondly, that he had embezzelled thirty thousand Pounds of the King’s Treasure’.

9 of] the only backed off from this drastic decision when Henry agreed that Becket could return to England without punishment.

The Reign of Henry II

263

To these Accusations he insolently refused to plead; and for not doing so gave two Reasons as insolent as frivolous: He alledged ‘that the King’s Son, when left Regent by his Father (a Boy of eight Years old) had acquitted him of all Royal Demands’. For the rest, he said, ‘that clothed as he was with the Archiepiscopal Dignity, he disowned all Lay-jurisdiction: Neither could any such Tribunal convict him, though he were ever so guilty’. A most knavish Defence for so heavy a Charge of public Robbery and Fraud; and a traiterous Evasion in one who had signed the Statutes of Clarendon, by which all such fairy clerical Exemptions were condemned as public Grievances. His fol. 130v Argument, ‘that the | Pope had condemned these Statutes’, was notably arrogant and evasive; since by it he trampled upon the very Authority which condemned him; the Laws of Clarendon being now the received Laws of England, revived and established by Parliament; yet by Becket ’s Principles, as he now declared, the Will of the Pope was of more Force than all the Laws of the Kingdom, and by Consequence every Ecclesiastic was above the Parliament and the Laws. ‘The supreme Power of the Pope, the sacred Character of Churchmen, and the Independency of Churchmen’; was the only answer that could be drawn from him to all the Arguments from Law and Gospel and the Rights of Justice and Society. Nor could any Courtship or Sollicitation persuade him to wait upon the King, who desired to see him, in hopes to mollify him. Entreaty and Civility rather hardened Becket than gained him. The King who was abler than he, improved this his Obstinacy and Rudeness to a Charge of Disobedience; to which Charge another fol. 131r was added of much more weight, ‘that | he refused to submit to Justice’. His Pride was still unconquerable; still he refused to plead, and still disowned all Tribunals but his own. He was therefore condemned for Contumacy and Rebellion against the Laws; and all his moveable Effects were sentenced to be confiscated. But since this Judgment affected not the Person of Becket; the King directed Articles to be exhibited against him, ‘for Perjury; as he had avowedly violated the Oath of Allegiance, taken to his Sovereign; and for Treason, as he had expresly disobeyed the Commands of his Sovereign, when called to appear before him’. Becket had now 19 ⎡and⎤ 21 – 22 Court⎡ship⎤ 25 ⎡who⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

264

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

Demonstration, that it was determined to humble him, or to ruin him; for till now he had hopes in the Timidity of his Judges, as easie to be awed with spiritual Terrors. He found that he could not terrify them; yet, wilful even to Craziness, would not submit to them. He was naturally positive and conceited, and guided by a Spirit more stubborn than Nature, the enthusiastic Craziness of an inflamed Churchman, grasping at the Glory of Saintship by the usual Steps of Sauciness and Treason. He was tried first for Perjury; and even his fol. 131v Brethren the Bishops agreed in condemning | him. To acquit themselves, and mortify him, and perhaps to make their due court else where, they acquainted him by a Message, ‘that they disowned him for their Primate, and would hold no longer Communion with him’. A message which he treated, as he did whatever or whosoever thwarted his Pride, with Scorn. The Lords paused a while; perhaps with the King’s Connivance, before they would proceed to try him for Treason; to see whither the Terrors of the Law would awaken him to a Sense of Guilt and Danger. For, if he were found guilty of Treason, he was liable to be put to death as a Traitor. Becket who knew not what it was to be in the wrong, and found his greatest Merit in his greatest Enormities, laughed at the Sentence, as void and sinful, despised the King’s Displeasure, and went on exercising the Archiepiscopal Dignity, with the same Parade and Unconcern, as if the Laws had been asleep, the King a Cypher, and the Archbishop Master of the Kingdom. The Lords therefore met in the | King’s Presence to proceed fol. 132r against this untamable Rebel. Neither did this News so much alarm him, as heighten his Madness with a Fit extraordinary. He repaired to Church, and there, both to scold at the King and the Lords, and to sound his own Praises out of the Scripture, which is generally quoted most by those who most abuse it, he commanded the second Psalm to be sung; a Psalm, as he thought, to his purpose, but much more suitable to such as were most unlike him: The Rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed. All Fanactics are akin to the Divinity, and with suitable Confidence claim his aid. Their greatest Guilt below is Merit above, and all their Enemies are

8 ⎡even⎤ 18 when, ⎡if he were⎤ 33 him];:

The Reign of Henry II

265

his. From mocking God and Justice at Church, he proceeded, his Courage heated by his Devotion, personally to affront the King and insult the Lords, met in Council. There he entered unasked, or unasking, armed with the Cross like a Truncheon, against Law, as, being under Sentence of the Law, he had no Right to be there. The Archbishop of York and the Bishop of London, surprized at such a Spectre, and perhaps ashamed, treated him with proper Asperity and fol. 132v Menaces, particularly that his Sovereign’s Weapons were | sharper than his. Yes, says the bold Hypocrite; His can kill the Body: But mine destroys the Soul, and sends it into Hell. This was threatening the King with Excommunication, and incensed the Monarch, as it well might. He said it was not only an Insult upon his Sovereign, but a Violation of the Statutes of Clarendon; and pressed the Lords to proceed directly upon that fresh Crime. He was accordingly condemned to prison and to be punished according to Law. They particularly judged his manner of entering the Court, to be riotous and tending to raise Sedition. Two Earls, of principal Figure were sent to him (too great honour) to summon him to come and hear his Sentence. Here again he denied the Right of the Peers to judge him, and appealed to the Pope; adding Treason to Treason, and deserving Death even by his Defence. This the Earls represented to him: Upon which he ran still madder, railed at them as Calumniators, and threatened them, that fol. 133r were it not for his Gown, he would make | them retract this Calumny, with his Sword. He was not, however, mad enough to try his further Strength against the Laws. He fled away that very Night, followed by the outragious Cries and Reproaches of the People, calling him Traitor and challenging him to stay and receive his Sentence. He escaped under a Disguise and a feigned Name, and landed in Flanders, in his way to France. Becket, whose Life was governed by Pride and Passion, reckoned himself sure of Protection from the King of France, and even of his Interest with the Pope, in whatever would mortify and embarrass Henry: And indeed he found that King ready to gratify present Pique by a Step pernicious to the Authority of all Kings, in maintain-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 his1.] his 2 ⎡personally⎤ 8 was ⎡were⎤ 15 ⎡to be⎤ 19 by ⎡to⎤ summoning 20 ⎡him,⎤ 27 Reproa⎡c⎤hes 33 embar⎡r⎤ass

266

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 5

ing any Traitor against his Sovereign, and in encouraging the Pope to usurp, what all Popes were zealous to usurp, Sovereignty over all Sovereigns. His own Turn might be next, for ought he knew; and he set an Example to warrant his own Prelates to trample upon his own Power, by appealing to that of Rome. All this was represented to him by Embassadors from King Henry, without effect. He said that he could not refuse to the | unfortunate a Shelter in his Kingdom. Had fol. 133v it been his own Case he would not have called Guilt Misfortune. This Monarch was so blind as to turn advocate to the Pope for a Rebel against the Cause of Monarchy. The Pope, who was still in France,9 rejoiced at so uncommon an Opportunity of humbling Kings by the Assistance of a King, and of encouraging the Clergy every where to defy their Sovereign, and to depend upon Support from Rome. He considered himself as called upon in Policy to support Becket. He therefore expressed special Wrath against Henry and the Lords, for presuming to condemn Becket, and for forcing him to fly. It was a temerarious and impious Proceeding against his dear rebellious Son, so steady an Incendiary in behalf of the Church against the State; and he threatened to set Hell open upon the King and the Lords. The King who was well apprized of his Spirit and Influence, had sent | over Embassy to vindicate himself and justify his Proceedings fol. 134r against Becket; a grand Embassy of many Lords and Bishops, and a shameful Proof of the awful and pompous Respect paid by the Princes of the Earth to the Roman Mitre. The Ambassadors acquitted themselves with spirit, particularly the Archbishop of York, who boldly accused Becket of Insulting and even Threatning the King, like a Traitor, and with high Treason, in refusing to submit to the Judgment of the Lords: He ridiculed ‘his Pride and vain Evasion, as if They were his Sons, and could not judge their Father. And he maintained the Proceedings against Becket to be just and necessary’: All this in Presence of Becket, who, in answer, justified all he had done,

7 ⎡to⎤ 8 Misfortune],. as if Names could change the Nature of Things. 13 ⎡to2⎤ 29 that ⎡as if⎤ 9

In 1162, Alexander III had been forced to leave Rome after being briefly detained there by supporters of the imperialist antipope Victor IV.

The Reign of Henry II

267

especially his Appeal to the Pope. He insisted that he could own no Civil Court, without violating the whole Ecclesiastical Canons; which was a fresh Declaration of Guilt, as also an avowal and a Confirmation of past Guilt. Besides, he said, ‘he knew that the Lords were determined to condemn him’. He certainly might well know how richly he deserved Condemnation. He then averred the Pope to fol. 134v be the proper, the impartial Judge, and that all men ought to | own him for such. After this Flight of Flattery and bold Falshood, he applied himself to the Pope and Cardinals, and chiefly to their Passions: He prayed them ‘to remember how much their Honour and Interest were concerned in his Cause; how much their Power and Dignity were wounded through his Sides; how fatally they themselves might come to suffer, if they permitted him to fall. It was not so much a Dispute between a King and his Subject, as the Cause of the Church in general: And the Design of the King was alarming to all the Clergy; since he aimed at stripping the Clergy of all their Priviledges’. He was not ashamed to call his thus affronting the Laws and defying the King’s Prerogative, a Privilege of the Clergy. The Royal Ambassadors finding his Drift to cajole the Pope, in order to adopt his particular Quarrel as the Quarrel of the Church itself, insisted the more earnestly with his Holiness to send his own Legate into England and try Becket over again there; a Proof that the fol. 135r King | acknowledged the Pope’s Authority, and meant no Disrespect to it, since he would be determined by it. This Request, too fair to be rejected, was yet not thought safe to be accepted; for the Pope who knew the Frailty of Churchmen, feared that the King’s Bounty in England would govern the Judgment of the Apostolic Legate: He therefore to evade it, declared, with profane Gayety, that, like God, he would not give his Glory to another, but would rehear the Cause himself. He however found a Pretence to defer it. The King before he left England (for he was now in Normandy) having no Faith in the Equity of the Pope, had, to intimidate him, forbidden all Appeals to Rome under severe Penalties; and to make the Terror more effectual, given strict Orders for the Commitment

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

6 [[...]] ⎡averred⎤ 16 ⎡all⎤ 20 – 21 ⎡in order⎤ 21 Quar⎡r⎤el1 | Quar⎡r⎤el2 27 Royal ⎡King’s⎤

268

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

of the Kindred of all such as had accompanied Becket in his Flight abroad, or had repaired to him since. Then, to punish all such Ecclesiastics as adhered to Becket, and to disable them from assisting him, Henry sequestered all their Revenues into the hands of the Bishop of London. He likewise gave orders to the Magistrates, to inflict summarily the Punishment of Traitors upon all such as presumed to publish or carry about them | any Act of Excommunication or Interdict, fol. 135v from the Pope or from Becket, against England or any Englishman. He seized all the Revenues of the Church of Canterbury, with all the Effects of the Archbishop. He commanded that no Prayers should be made for him, and banished all, even his most remote, Relations. The pious and implacable Archbishop, who could commit the worst Injuries, but never forgive the least, boiling with fresh Rage at such high and contemptuous Proceedings, excommunicated all who adhered to the Articles of Clarendon, with many Lords of the Council by Name; and by it brought fresh Scorn upon himself and upon his Auxiliary Damnation. It piqued him grievously that he could not humble the King, and make him truckle to an Incendiary Subject. As a further Effort therefore of his Rage and to frighten his Sovereign, he had the consistent Insolence, to send him a Letter full of Commands and Threats, and of incredible Strains of Arrogance. In it the Hypocrite professes his earnest | Desire to have seen the fol. 136r King, chiefly for the King’s Sake; reproaches him with his Services, and appeals to the Testimony of Mankind at the last Day before the Tribunal of God; upbraids the King for want of Compassion towards him in Exile, and under the Necessity of begging Bread; tho he owns that, through the Bounty of others, he has Plenty of all Things; declares what Comfort he has from the Apostle’s Words; that they who live in Christ, shall suffer Persecution; as if an implacable Spirit against God’s Truth and Peace and human Society, were a Mark of living in Christ. He next abuses another Text from the Prophet, who says that he had never seen the Righteous forsaken. From this Character and Observation, an Incendiary and Criminal condemned, finds also great Joy. He then, like a Pedant, plays with false Distinctions, and considers Henry in three Lights, as his Liege Lord, to whom he therefore

1 had] as had 8 En⎡g⎤lishman 16 ⎡upon2⎤ 18 iIncendiary 21 ⎡of1⎤

The Reign of Henry II

269

offers his Advice, such as was due from a Bishop, in other Words his Commands; secondly, as his King, to whom he is bound to offer his Admonitions (observe, his Admonitions!), a natural Preliminary to Stripes, which the King is next thirdly to expect under the Character fol. 136v of the Archbishop’s spiritual Son, whom in | Duty he is to correct and exhort, that is, to punish and command. After a Senseless Observation of what is imported by the manner of anointing Kings, namely, Glory, Holiness and Power, he warns the King from the Fate of certain Kings, who had despised the Commandments of the Lord, and were thence deprived of all three; whence he insinuates that all his Demands are the Lord’s Commandments, and threatens the King with the same Doom. He then quotes other Kings, who humbling themselves before the Lord, were blessed with Grace and all noble Advantages: Another plain Admonition, how it behoved Henry to treat Becket, who speaks for himself in the Lord’s Name. He next repeats the Pedantry of Henry’s threefold Character, and advises him to submit to the Advice of Becket, who deigns to own himself his Subject; to submit to the Admonition of the same Becket, who was his Bishop; and to the Correction of the same Becket, as his Father. He otherwise warns him of the Danger fol. 137r and Damnation attending Schism; praises the King’s former | Devotion to the Pope; reminds him of his Engagement to protect the Church, and then concludes with a Command to his Liege Lord, to restore the Church of Canterbury, from which, says he, you have received your Authority. Besides all his other Claims and Preeminences, of advising the King, admonishing the King, correcting the King, and commanding the King, he here asserts the Right and Power of having created his King. He naturally concludes, by menacing the King with the dreadful Wrath and Vengeance of the Almighty, unless he humbles himself and submits to Becket, the Almighty’s Deputy. In this Letter, such a one as was never sent from a Subject to his Sovereign, Becket drew his own Picture and maintained all his wild Pretensions, so remote from Peace and Truth, from the Gospel of Christ and the Rules of Society. As crazy as he was, he had too much experience of the World, to mean it as a reconciling Letter, where the 1 is ⎡as was⎤ 4 ⎡thirdly⎤ 15 ⎡it behoved⎤ | Henry] is

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

270

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

King is treated with such Asperity and Grossness, and the Writer his Enemy, as a Saint and Confessor, the Friend of God, persecuted and undone by the King. To shame him, if possible, for writing such an infamous Libel, the Bishop of London | and other Suffragan Bishops of the same fol. 137v Province, sent him a severe Remonstrance ‘for his arrogant Stile to his Sovereign, who had raised him from Obscurity to such a pitch of Grandeur, for his scandalous Ingratitude to such a Benefactor, and for his insolent Disloyalty in threatning his Lord the King. If he had appealed to the Pope, so would They, and fighting him with his own Weapons, defeat all his turbulent Purposes against Them and the Realm’. Becket, besides his natural Pride and Obstinacy, and his fanatic Zeal for priestly Domination, trusted to the Pope and to the French King, and was thence confident that he should master his Sovereign. Henry, to secure himself, and to convince the World, that he was able to deal with all his Enemies, raised a powerful Army, which so effectually convinced his Holiness that Henry’s Cause was not so bad, nor the Archbishop’s so good, that he dropped his late ardour for present spiritual Censure against the King, and even complied with what he | had so lately declined, the King’s Desire to have Legates sent fol. 138r over to decide the Affair in England: Yet it appeared in the Issue, that though he gave the King (now at the Head of a brave Army, which, if joined to that of the Emperor, the Pope’s formidable Enemy, might have brought his Holiness to any Condescension to both) I say, though under his present Fear he gave Henry many sugar Words, and greatly praised his Moderation, he had silently and knavishly contrived an effectual Bar to any such Decision. This Deceit of the Holy Father soon appeared; for when the Legates began to proceed, Becket refused to abide by their Sentence, unless he and all his Friends were first repossessed by the King of whatever he had taken from them; and unless the King would recall and annul all Orders and Proceedings against him and Them, from the first Dispute to this Time, and consequently clear and discharge the Archbishop, and condemn himself and the Lords as guilty and

14 Damn⎡omin⎤ation 15 ⎡thence⎤ 26 ⎡though⎤ 32 unless] that

The Reign of Henry II

271

sacrilegious Men. This convinced the King and his Ministers of the Pope’s knavish Dealings. There were Attempts the while made upon Becket by his own Friends. But the inflexible Becket would condescend to nothing, but fol. 138v with his former Chicanry, and such Restrictions and | savings, as rendered all his Condescensions unmeaning and evasive. As he only urged the Interest and honour of the Church, and would seem to be animated by Zeal for the Church only; they laid a Trap for him, and caught him in it. They asked him whether, for public Peace, he would resign the Archbishopric, if the King would suppress the Articles of Clarendon. Still, ‘the Cause of the Church was in the Way and barred him from any such wicked Contract. He had that great and sacred Charge committed to his Trust, and he could not betray it, by venturing its falling into worse and insufficient Hands. He would never abandon the Cause of God and of the Church. But the King was bound in Conscience and Duty to repeal all wicked Laws, consequently the Laws of Clarendon’. He was thus Judge on both Sides, of the King’s Cause and his own; and there was an End of all Treaty, as well as of any Decision by the Legates. The King had no Choice left but either to truckle to this canting fol. 139r Traitor, his Competitor for the Monarchy, or to | pursue him as his most dangerous Enemy. He therefore notified to the Abbot of the Cistertians, at Pontigni, where Becket was entertained in their Monastry, that if he were not forthwith dismissed, he would banish from his Dominions all the Monks of their Order and seize their Estates. The prudent Fathers, however they reverenced in their Hearts their renowned Champion and Guest, would not forfeit their comfortable Mansions and Revenues, even for the Cause of the Church. They sent away their Archbishop, who however soon found fresh Refuge from the French King, who entertained him with great Respect and Affluence at Sens, where the outragious Fugitive improved all Opportunities to inflame that Prince more and more against his own. Yet still Henry was victorious, and Becket was miserable, an Exile, stripped of his princely See, and his bitter Spirit blessed with no Vengeance, though he had the avowed Patronage of the Pope and the King of France. But the latter dreaded Henry as much as he hated 33 ⎡was2⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

272

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

him; and his Holiness saw, with a sad Heart, the suspension of his Gains from England, formerly his best Market; and | thence an fol. 139v Example set to the rest of Christendom, to despise his Power and rejet his Demands. Besides there was another Pope called an Antipope, claiming the only Title to the Chair of St. Peter (who never had any, at least never got any thing by it) appealing to Heaven for his genuine Mission and Election, pretending to notable Miracles, damning his Competitor, as an Impostor, with all his Adherents, and, like a true Pope, acquitting himself of all the like awful Acts of Papacy. Henry too was daily threatening to own him for the true Pope, and inviting other States to acknowledge him. Alexander, who was the Pope most in Possession, besides this Advantage (which was no small one, perhaps the only one and the best) had a high and, as he afterwards shewed, a daring Spirit, by a Triumph of Papacy scarce credible, and never equalled before nor since. He humbled one of the loftyest Sovereigns of the Earth, the Emperor Barbarossa, even to bodily Prostration, even trod upon his Neck, and prostituted the word of God to insult his Sovereign Lord, and to extol himself. Such was the Darkness, | the Madness and Magic, fol. 140r which had then seized Christendom, and was operating in full Force at this very Time in the Cause of Becket. The Pope knew this, knew that the English Clergy were his devoted Sons, and that the King dared not substitute another in Opposition to the Spirit and Bigotry of the Clergy. Besides all that were for the Pope were for Becket. Alexander sensible of this capital Advantage, to manifest his Defiance of the King, as well as to frighten him, not only distinguished Becket with pompous Tenderness and Regard, but confined to him all the Immunities and Claims of his Predecessors. At the same Time as a Confirmation of his Contempt for the King, even whilst the King was threatning utterly to disown him, and to withdraw his obedience from him, he wrote a Letter to the Bishop of London, commanding the Bishop boldly to admonish him, and to order him, in his Name, not only to restore the Archbishop, but to abolish the Statutes of Clarendon. The King, who could never be sure that he had any Subject, so long as Subjects were forced or frightened to obey the Pope more

4 ⎡rejet his⎤ | and ⎡Pope called⎤ 10 – 11 ⎤ Henry ... him.⎤ 14 ⎡a2⎤ 33 and ⎡him, and to⎤

The Reign of Henry II

273

than him, could not, (the bravest Prince of his Time, could not,) fol. 140v avoid hearing these imperious Commands from a | usurping Friar. It

was moreover a shocking Circumstance to hear them delivered by the Bishop of London,10 the King’s real Friend, but not daring to disobey the Pope; a plain Proof that no Clergyman could be a good Subject to his Sovereign, since even the best Clergyman durst not. The Bishop in answer told the Pope that he had obeyed his Commands, but added, like a good Subject, that ‘the King had invaded none of the Priviledges of the Church, and only exercised the Prerogatives of the Kings his Predecessors: Nor could his Conduct be impeached, as he still offered to submit to the Decision of the Church, if such Decision were made, as it ought to be made within his Kingdom’. The King of France instigated by the Pope and Becket, and naturally Jealous of King Henry, had ventured to proceed to Blows with him. Henry came to a Pacification with him the sooner in order to come to a Conclusion with Becket, from a Foresight of the dangerous fol. 141r Consequences of prolonging such a Dispute. | He therefore desired an Interview with the King of France, desiring the latter to appoint the Place and to bring Becket to it. The French King agreed to it, came, and brought Becket with him. Here this Parricide, the most guilty and wilful that ever sinned or suffered, was so far from owning any guilt, that he confidently assumed the Merit of a Confessor, persecuted for the sake of Righteousness; asserted his Cause to be the Cause of God; maintained his Innocence, and boasted to have done his Duty. When he was asked, ‘whether his Duty did not call him to obey his Sovereign’; he replied, in all Things, saving the Honour of God: The old Reserve and Evasion, big with all Danger, Impiety and Fraud; for he himself was to judge what was God ’s Honour, and under that Name might justify endless Treason and every destructive Measure.

5

10

15

20

25

30

7 ⎡that⎤ 12 ⎡made2⎤ 15 come ⎡proceed⎤ 16 him1.] [[...]] | ⎡in order⎤ 17 Foresight] of prolonging a dispute | ⎡the⎤ 18 ⎡of prolonging such a Dispute⎤ 10

Gilbert Foliot (c. 1110–87). Becket excommunicated Foliot twice. On the second occasion, this led to the Archbishop’s martyrdom.

274

5

10

15

20

25

30

The King saw it well, and observed it to the King of France. ‘He promises me, says he, in effect nothing, under such slippery and doubtful Words. I shall deal in a more candid Strain with him. England hath produced Kings not so potent as I am, with Archbishops eminent for Ability and Holiness. If he will afford me the same Treatment which the greatest of his | Predecessors paid to the mean- fol. 141v est of mine, I shall be content’. An offer too generous from such a Prince to such a Subject, and a Proof of his Sincerity to a Criminal who had none, but having mischievous and desperate Intentions, would accept no reasonable Offer, nor Answer in any clear or honest Words. He durst not say that the proposal was not fair: But as he had behaved, and still meant to behave towards his Liege Lord, with such treasonable Arrogance as no former Archbishop ever had shewn or durst shew, not even the peevish and imperious Dunstan,11 he insolently rejected the King’s Proposal; not for the real Reason (which he durst not own) but for a knavish as well as a bold and unlawful one, ‘that he was under the judgement of the Pope, and without his Consent could agree to nothing’. Even the French King condemned the obstinate Becket, and declared his Obstinacy to be the only Impediment to Peace: A Declaration of great Use to Henry, as it destroyed the Credit of a clerical Lye, carefully | propagated, fol. 142r that Henry had formed a Scheme ‘for robbing the English Church of all her Emoluments’. Becket, though thus detected and exposed, yet led by inexorable Vengeance and Ambition; and sure of the Pope’s Protection in a wicked Cause, would speak no plainer, and the Conference ended in nothing. The King had plainly shewn himself a Christian, ready to forgive and restore. The Archbishop was too much a Churchman to be guided by the Spirit, or fettered with the Precepts of the Gospel; and the Pope was charmed with the Spirit of Becket. His Holiness even gratified the Archbishop with leave to excommunicate his Enemies, and thus to avenge himself and the Church upon them, with the spiritual Sword; that is, to give them to Satan and the bottomless Pit,

1 it1] ⎡too⎤ 31 xxxded by ⎡charmed with⎤ 11

Chapter 5

Archbishop of Canterbury (960–78), subsequently canonized as a saint.

The Reign of Henry II

275

for keeping him from his Titles, which he had forfeited. Nor was the implacable Becket slow in this his Vengeance. He surrendered so many of his Brethren, the Clergy, to the Devil, that they were scarce enow left out of his Clutches to perform Service in the King’s Chapfol. 142v pel. This damning Spirit in him was the more | unpardonable, for that most of those thus damned by him, were cordially in his Interest, and kept from joining him by dread of the King alone. This the merciless Prelate called Prevarication, and asserted their Damnation to be just, because they did not openly rebel in his Behalf. The King, whom the Pope had presumptuously acquainted with this his Permission to Becket, justly enraged at Both, sent a terrifying Message to his Holiness, what vigorous Measures he would take, unless immediate Legates were sent instantly to decide all Disputes; and to shew himself in Earnest, had already appealed to a future Council. The Pope who knew both the great Power and great Heart of the King, and much apprehended his Union with the Emperour, found himself terribly hampered between his dread of Henry and his Patronage of Becket, whose Cause he could not support without manifest Danger, nor drop without open Disgrace. fol. 143r His Holiness therefore applied to the usual Resources | of the Holy See in distress: fraudulent Submission, and false Promises. He feigned to be again ready to meet the King’s Wishes, and desirous to have the Affair finally determined in England. As a false Proof of his Sincerity, he ordered his Legates to repair to the King still in Normandy, who hoped to see their full Powers to that Purpose. But before they reached him, his Holyness added a new Clause that spoiled all, as from the first he intended: For by it they were ordered to conclude nothing without the Concurrence of the Archbishop of Sens, a furious Champion of Becket ’s. Thus he further provoked Henry by further deceiving him; yet as he still feared him he still flattered him, with a constant Design to cheat him: As if he had really been what he was forced to seem, in earnest, he now referred it to the two Kings, again to think of bringing about an Accommodation, upon an Assurance of Success. Henry, who was truly in Earnest, met the French King at Paris: Becket had Orders once more to appear before them; and once more the Con1 ⎡his⎤ 4 – 5 Chap⎡p⎤el

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

276

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 5

ference was abortive. The King made the usual and all possible Condescensions. Becket would make none. | He had the Assurance to fol. 143v refuse to treat at all, till the King had first condemned himself, and consequently acquitted his Traitor, by an intire Restitution, without so much as being certain that his Traitor would afterwards at all submit to any Terms. The King, to humour the provoking, unreasonable Prelate, more than he ought, offered him a large Sum under another Name, said to be for the Expences of his Journey. Becket was unchangeable, and could be brought to nothing or what was worse than nothing, indeed a new Crime, or rather Treason, that, ‘he would refer himself to the Judgment of the French Divines’. An Offer full of Guilt, and even of self Condemnation. By it, and by his whole Behaviour, in all Lights odious to God and Man, he became detested by every candid and disinterested Observer. The King, on the contrary, reaped just Applause by his large Compliances and his apparent Disposition to Peace. In every word and step Becket made it plainer and | plainer, fol. 144r that he was not, would not, and could not be an English Subject. He owned but one Superior in the World, the Pope (surely the worst in it.) In England he owned no Superior. He considered the King and indeed treated him as a Usurper, a sacrilegious Usurper of the Rights of the Church, and was zealously, by his great Advocate the Archbishop of Sens, solliciting the Pope to damn the King by Excommunication, and the Kingdom by an Interdict.12 Rapin observes upon this Occasion, ‘that there is no adjusting any Quarrel with the Clergy, but upon their own Terms. Their Cause is the Cause of God; and no Concessions can be made without Sin’.13

10 nothing,] and 12

William of Champagne, also known as ‘White Hands’ (1135–1202) and the Archbishop of Sens since 1168, was Henry II’s first cousin. He had been an early supporter of Becket’s cause. In 1169, he reported to the Pope about the outcome of the meeting at Montmartre between the kings of France and England, which took place on Epiphany. At the meeting Thomas had prostrated himself before Henry and offered to be reconciled to him at the king’s discretion, but had then added, ‘saving God’s honour and my order’. In the same year, William wrote to the Pope in the name of King Louis, asking him to confirm the sentence of excommunication pronounced by Thomas against the Bishop of London and his partisans on 13 April in the hope of intimidating Henry II. 13 See Rapin-Thoyras, The History of England, trans. by Tindal, vol. i, p. 231.

The Reign of Henry II

277

Nor are a few, or even a good Number of good Men amongst them any Pledge or Security for the good Behaviour of all. For the Many will decry them, libel them, traduce them and hunt them down. The Cry of one will be the Cry of all; every Criminal amongst them, will have them all for his Advocates, especially in whatever proves interesting or flattering to the Body: The worst Cause with this Merit, will be extolled as the best; and then War will be denounced to the fol. 144v faint Heart and the weak Hand; every moderate | Man, every reasonable Man, will be a false Brother, for opposing the pious Madness in Fashion: Moderation itself will be lukewarmness, probably a Sign of Atheism: Tender Conscience will be Hypocrisy; and a Zeal for the Gospel will be Fanaticism: Opposition to the selfish Schemes of Churchmen, will be enmity to the Church; any Attempt to reform the Clergy, an Attack upon Religion; and a sincere Desire to rescue Religion from the Superstition and Craft of Impostors, a Sign that Religion is wounded and in Danger. As often as Religion has been against the Clergy, so often have the Clergy been against Religion; a State of Enmity which has sometimes subsisted for many Ages successively; and the Ruin of Religion been brought upon Religion under its own Name. Has the Pope, have the endless Frauds and Cruelties of Popery, any thing to do with the plain merciful Gospel, but to suppress and destroy it? Are Imfol. 145r postors, Persecutors, public Incendiaries, and public Traitors, | to be called Christians? Was Becket a Christian, or are any who resemble him, Christians? Did ever any Pagan, did ever the Spirit of Paganism depart more widely from Christianity? Did ever the worst Paganism produce half the Impostures, half the Contradictions, or half the Cruelties of Popery? Did ever a pagan Priest pretend to make and multiply his Maker? Did Paganism ever found an Inquisition? Could any Pagan Priest be a more turbulent Subject; or a more flaming Foe to Society than Becket, and many who have resembled Becket? Did Paganism amongst all its many Deifications, however ridiculous, ever deify such a pestilent Traitor to his Country? Yet Becket was deified for those very guilty Qualifications; at least sainted, that is treated like the Deity himself, adored and prayed to, with Devotion much

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

6 Body],: tThe 7 [[...]] ⎡extolled⎤ ⎡[[...]]⎤ 13 ⎡will be⎤ 17 as ⎡so⎤ 19 and] all 23 Tra⎡i⎤tors 29 I⎡n⎤quisition 32 Deifactions⎡ications⎤ 33 deify] such [[...]]

278

5

10

15

20

25

(a)

Chapter 5

warmer and more frequent, and with Offerings more numerous than were paid to the Deity. But of this more hereafter. Henry knowing what warm Sollicitations were made to the Pope against him, and the Pope’s warm Disposition to comply with them, even to excommunicate Him, and to put the Kingdom under an Interdict; or in other Words, | to give him to Satan, and to keep the fol. 145v Nation from God; a Priviledge of Omnipotence robbed by the Pope from God, and employed by him against God: I say Henry, to prevent this Storm, issued a Proclamation, forbidding all his Subjects to receive or admit any Orders whatsoever from the Pope or Becket, and threatening to hang as public Traitors whoever submitted to such Orders. He commanded ‘all absent Clergymen to return to their Churches, on pain of Forfeiture, and suspended the Payment of Peter-Pence, the Pope’s annual Rents’. These vigorous and kingly Proceedings alarmed the Pope: He feared something worse to follow, and reserved his Fairy Thunder. His Holiness, however incapable of Forgiving, was excellent at Temporizing, a good Craftsman, but a bad Christian, and only waited for a safe Opportunity to shew it. The King having spent four Years abroad, chiefly employed to pacify or disable an incorrigible Priest, labouring to unking him, found at his Return | many Disorders to redress, the Consequences fol. 146r of his long Absence, such as Becket was in a great Measure answerable for, had public Good been any Part of his Care, or public Mischief any Part of his Fear. Henry found Justice public and private, so corruptly administered, or so totally neglected, in every Quarter of the Kingdom, that he empowered Commissioners, such as he could trust, Men of credit, some of great Quality, to restore the Laws, and regulate judicial Proceedings throughout the whole.(a) This seasonable Enquiry produced many Criminals and many Punishments.14

See Tyrrell v. 2d p. 463.

1 warmedr 14

Henry II set up a judicial inquiry in 1170 to review acts of oppression that had taken place during his four-year absence in France. He suspended all the sheriffs from their office, appointed twelve commissioners to investigate their behaviour, and subsequently dismissed all but seven of them.

The Reign of Henry II

279

The King having thus acquitted himself as the Father of his People, had in return the Hearts and Thanks of his People. His next Step, though he had a political Design in it, seems to have proceeded more from Vanity than from sound Policy, as he afterwards severely found. He assembled the States and caused his Son, Prince Henry, to be crowned, in their Presence, with their Assent and Approbation. Next Day the States all tendered the Young King their Allegiance in form, and were entertained at a grand Banquet, were the Old King bringing up the first Dish, and saying to the v fol. 146 Young One, that no King was ever more | nobly served, the Son whispered to the Archbishop of York, that it was no great Condescension in the Son of an Earl, to wait upon the Son of a King; an early Declaration of Disrespect, and the Sign rather of a haughty Heart than of a wise head. Few Kings were ever repaid with Gratitude for having divided their Power with a Partner. A Crown is a Favour too high to be owned. What can be equivalent Gratitude for Sovereignty, unless a Sovereign will unmake himself to oblige his Maker; if he will own any such? What is above an equal Return, is likewise above natural Affection. Who yet ever loved a Father better than a Kingdom? Such an Instance is at least as rare, as a Father relinquishing a Kingdom to his Son, without repenting of it. Dividing a Kingdom with a Son, or raising him to an equal Portion of Kingship, is a Counsel still as rash, if not more, and as sure to produce Repentance. Henry the 2d though fol. 147r he did this to secure the | Kingdom in his Family, by it likewise meant to mortify Becket, but found Mortification from it more sensible than ever Becket could give him. The Young King was crowned by the Archbishop of York, assisted with several other Bishops, who will be named hereafter: A provoking Blow to the Pride of Becket, who maintained, ‘that no King could be crowned, no Coronation performed, but by himself ’.15 This was

5

10

15

20

25

30

29 hereafter],: aA 15

In June 1170, Roger of Pont L’Evêque, the archbishop of York, together with Foliot, the bishop of London, and Josceline de Bohon, the bishop of Salisbury, crowned the fifteen-year-old Henry (1155–83), known as the Young King, in York. This was a breach of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s privilege of coronation, and in November Becket excommunicated all three of them. The Bishop of Durham, Hugh de Puiset, did not take sides in the conflict between the

280

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 5

therefore a sensible Injury; such an Insult upon his Character as called for terrible Vengeance, which he soon discharged in the most terrible Manner he could, and had soon an Opportunity to inflict it. A Fit of Sickness, thought to be mortal, raised in Henry, bred as he was in the blind Enthusiasm of the Times, some Remorse in Favour of Becket; and, weakness of Body commonly inferring weakness of Mind, he took a strong Resolution to be reconciled to him. The Pope was ready to dart his Thunder, and rowse public Disturbance: He himself longed for Quiet: Becket had been an Exile and a Beggar many Years, and probably would be now more practicable. The King, full of his pacific Scheme, upon his Recovery, engaged the French King | to give him another meeting, at which Becket fol. 147v attended. Henry was so sincere, indeed so forward and generous, as to yield to every material Demand of Becket, who, with the Appearance of great Candour and Content, advanced towards his Sovereign, to salute him, (as Henry believed) in Token of Peace and Reconciliation, but marred all by a quaint Distinction, which the King, considering from whom it came, construed to be big with Art and Design. It was indeed strange and suspicious Cant in the Archbishop to declare, as he did, that he was going to salute the King, to the Honour of God. It sounded as if he owned him for King but at second hand. Henry insisted upon his changing or explaining the Words. The unconquerable Pedant (who probably meant something worse than Pedantry) would neither add nor alter a Tittle; and they parted, as before, without any Agreement. But Henry still anxious, partly from Superstition, partly from Policy, to bring one about, had another Interview with | the King of fol. 148r France and many Princes and great Lords, before whom all Differences were adjusted, or seemed to be. Henry on his Part was perfectly in earnest and heartily reconciled to the Archbishop. He freely swore to restore him amply and without Restriction, to all his wonted Sway and Possession, nay to make full Restitution to all his Relations and Friends. He declared that he generously forgave all that was passed, and held the Stirrup to Becket, as if he indeed owned him for Master.

king and Becket, but he was in attendance at the coronation of the Young King, and was therefore suspended by Alexander III. Because the Young King died before his father did, he is not included in the numerical succession of the kings of England.

The Reign of Henry II

281

So much Frankness, generosity, such high Court and humble Condescension, enough to appease the most angry Spirit, at least any christian Spirit, was lost upon this unappeasable Prelate. He had readily procured from the King the Pardon of all his Brother Incendiaries, all who had from the beginning of the Quarrel, more or less opposed, affronted and provoked their Sovereign. His return for this was that, whatever he had promised to the contrary, he would forgive no Man that had ever offended him, even in serving and obeying their Sovereign, as their Oaths and Duty bound them. Upon his first Landing at Sandwich, he cursed and excommunicfol. 148v ated the Bishops of London, Durham | and Exeter, and suspended the Archbishop of York; for having like true Subjects, loyally adhered to the King, and not to Him against the King. He was particularly enraged at their performing what he thought his unalienable Right, the Coronation of the Young King. For this unpardonable Sin in legally executing their Liege Lord’s Commands, in a Ceremony chiefly civil, he interdicted one, and surrendered the Rest to Hell. Nor had the Young King credit enough with him to stop his Fury; though he feigned a Respect for the Young King (who had been his Pupil) and under Pretence of waiting upon him at Woodstock, meant to make a Triumphant Entrance into London, like a Conqueror, as he was already assuming all the State and Pomp and Terrors of one. He met, upon his Return, with two very grating Mortifications. The Prince, who saw his Spirit, and probably knew his real Design in approaching to London, sent him a Letter which met him in Southfol. 149r wark, | commanding him to repair instantly to Canterbury. There, as he entered his Capital with formal Parade, he was only received with the Shouts and Greetings of the Rabble. The People of Sense and Condition shewed apparent Surprize and Disgust, to perceive him, instead of being humble by Affliction, more haughty and insolent than ever. He soon terribly confirmed their Observation. On Christmas Day, proudly mounting the Archiepiscopal Chair, as if he would reverse the Character of the meek and merciful Jesus, who had not a Hole where to lay his Head, he solemnly profaned our Saviour’s Name and Anniversary, by excommunicating, and surrendering to Satan 19 ⎡(who had been his Pupil)⎤ 26 ⎡him⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

282

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 5

two Lords of the Land, for two strange Causes, both purely worldly, one of them scandalous even to ridicule, Pigel de Sackvil 16 and Robert de Brock, the former charged with detaining a Mannor which, Becket said, belonged to the Archbishopric, the latter with cutting off the Tail of a Horse, not one of the Archbishop’s, but one that was carrying Provisions to his Palace. The two Barons, of Course men of high Birth and great Weight, were besides Tenants in Chief to the King; a Character which by the Law, if Becket had regarded any Law, was | exempt from Excommunication. By such a lawless Excommu- fol. 149v nication he had first begun his Quarrel with the King, and now by repeating the same Step, plainly declared that he meant to renew the same Quarrel. The three excommunicated Bishops, together with the suspended Archbishop, were already with the King in Normandy, and prostrating themselves before him, deplored the Dread and Misery which the Restoration of Becket brought upon all who had manifested their Zeal for the King’s Service and Cause. They represented their own Case; and added, that whilst Becket lived, it was impossible for England to be blessed with Peace. The King, amazed and incensed by these fresh Instances of Arrogance and Tyranny from this untameable and rebellious Spirit, and now despairing of all Tranquillity, whilst that stern Upstart, by himself hoisted from the Dust to a Throne, was alive to disturb it, cried aloud; ‘I am surely most unhappy, that amongst such a Multitude as I support, not a Man will venture to | avenge their affronted fol. 150r Monarch upon a wretched rebellious Priest’. Four of the King’s Domestics, then attending him, stung with their Master’s Reproaches, hating Becket, and provoked by his incessant Insults upon his Benefactor and Sovereign, agreeing together to assassinate him, proceeded directly to Canterbury, where the Archbishop was already by the King’s Command, upon the Complaint of the Bishops, confined within the Bounds of his Church. Upon their

4 He ⎡Becket⎤ 5 [[...]] ⎡the Archbishop’s,⎤ 9 was] exempt 9 – 10 Excommunication],. ⎡By such a lawless Excommunication⎤ 26 ⎡rebellious⎤ 27 ⎡then attending him,⎤ 28 Reproach⎡es⎤ 16

Nigel de Sackville.

The Reign of Henry II

283

first access to him, they amused him about his high Proceedings against the excommunicated Bishops and the Archbishop of York: Having thus diverted him from any Suspicion or Precaution, they entered the Cathedral, whilst he was engaged at Vespers there and standing by the Altar: Their first Assault was in fierce Reproaches for his unparalled Pride and Ingratitude. He answered with great Disdain, and in a high and scolding Tone, called one of them Pimp, perhaps him who talked loudest, and who upon this Provocation, gave him the first Blow. The rest pursued the Attack and dispatched him. Their Names were, Reginald Fitz Urze, William Tracey, Richard Brittain and Hugh Morvil,17 all Men of Fortune, Birth and Qualfol. 150v ity, | all in high Stations about the King and in high Favour with him. They had seen the turbulent and traiterous Behaviour of Becket, seen how signally the King had exalted him, how barbarously he had treated, insulted and plagued the King, and might easily conclude, that they had as good a Right to send such a Parricide out of the World, as he had to be daily committing the best Subjects and Christians to infernal Flames, thus furnishing Laymen with an Example to employ Swords against himself, instead of Flames: For, Swords, by the most authentic Testimony, were their only Weapons: His Favourers say Clubs, as sounding more barbarous. It is dangerous to justify Assassination; as it encourages every Man to be his own Judge. But it may be safely said, that many have deserved it, and none more than Becket, so long the Bane of Society, an Incendiary and Scandal to the English Government. Most men dying a violent Death are pitied. The most bloody and fol. 151r most | merciless Malefactors find notable Compassion at their Execution, and afterwards, from Children, Women and Weakmen: Whereas their Death ought to be as pleasing as their Life was mischievous and detestable. If the worst Criminal dye with the Odour of Sanctity, a Character often procured by the Force of Cant and Grimaces, he is sure of the Administration of Bigots, perhaps of their worship; and Dunces as well as Traitors, have often proved very popular Saints. Becket ’s Behaviour during his Assassination rendered his

11 Britta⎡i⎤n 24 Society,] and 25 , a ⎡and⎤ | in ⎡to⎤ 17

Reginald Fitz-Urse, William de Tracy, Richard le Breton, and Hugh de Morville.

5

10

15

20

25

30

284

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

Death more odious, and Him more amiable, especially to all who only considered him in the Lights of false Piety, and were thence blind to his real Guilt and prodigious Crimes. Under the Strokes of the Assassins he expressed Firmness and resolute Zeal, and fervently recommended to God the Cause of the Church. This Language was in reallity but self Applause, and a bitter Rebuke to the Assassins, as murdering the best and last Champion of God and the Church. He was not the only wicked Man who claimed high Merit and even Kindred with the Deity. So ready is the selfishness of Men, more especially the Bigotry of Man (a Quality which implies many terrible bad ones, particularly | consummate Conceit and consum- fol. 151v mate Want of Charity), I say so forward is a Bigot to aggrandize his own Character, and to consecrate his worst Actions, his Madness and his Crimes. Becket who suffered (however unlawfully) for a whole Groupe of Iniquities and his own infernal Pride, died in good humour with himself; reproached himself with nothing, after a Life immersed in Crimes, Crimes against Society, and consequently against all the Individuals who composed Society. He even insinuated, that the Cause of God was in Danger of perishing with him. So confident and persevering is the Spirit of a self sufficient Fanatic, fired with Pride, and with a Cause which charms Him, and which he therefore thinks the Cause of God. If History were silent about him, it would be a Presumption of his Guilt, that he was sainted, and so soon sainted, by the Church of Rome, which was then, exercising her Tyrranny apace over the Bodies and Souls of Men, by such Instruments working upon the confirmed Ignorance and gross | Superstition of the Times. It was a Dispute fol. 152r even in the popish Schools, (it could have been none in any other) many Years after he was canonized, whether he were in a State of Damnation or of Bliss. Let his Life and Actions condemn, or excuse him, now the contemptible Forgeries in his Favour, are despised. The number and singularity of his Miracles, disgrace and confute them. They were indeed so great and so many, as if they had been contrived to put those in the New Testament out of countenance, and so ridiculous as if they had been forged to ridicule all Miracles

1 xxx ⎡ami⎤able 7 C⎡h⎤ampion 12 ⎡I say so forward is a Bigot⎤ 23 – 24 against him ⎡of his Guilt⎤ 25 [[...]] ⎡exercising⎤ 28 even] with 35 render ⎡ridicule⎤

The Reign of Henry II

285

whatsoever. He raised the Dead, not only dead Men, but dead Beasts. He cured all diseases, repaired all the defects of nature, even the want of Limbs and of the Senses; and he conquered Death. Nay, a drop of Water, just tinged with his blood, performed all this. And he cast out Devils. When laid in his Coffin, he took it so ill to see the wax Candles in the Cathedral extinguished, that, being a great Lover of Order and Shew, he rose out of it and lighted them himself. At the close of his Funeral, he lifted up his Hands and blessed the People. He had indeed such a Talent at Miracles, that Books in Folio hardly suffered to hold all that he wrought. What a Wonder, that a Man so much master of the Power of God (for by God’s Power all Miracles are worked) should not have exerted it against his Assassins! Had he struck them into Statues, he fol. 152v needed | not have been in such Concern for the future Prosperity of the Church! Why not a Miracle during his Life, to convince the King with all his other Gainsayers, that the Power and Warrant of the Almighty were with him and exerted in his Defence? Why pursue his Enemies with no other than common human Vengeance, and the stale Chimera of Excommunication? Such Miracles as his, invented without Shame, by the lying Monks, were swallowed without Evidence by the deluded Rabble, always credulous, and, upon such Occasions, never inquiring; though upon such Occasions the sharpest Inquiry be necessary. So many Miracles brought many Votaries; and from many Votaries many Offerings. No wonder his Shrine was so marvellously enriched as to be itself a Miracle. These Miracles proving so lucrative, encouraged the holy Contrivers of them to add more and more to them. His Tomb became at last a Source and Theatre of Miracles, and drew fol. 153r the Devout | in Hosts from all Christendom, fifty Thousand in one Year, to pay their Devotions at it. For some hundred Years this wild Idolatry to this sacred Parricide, went on prospering, and by the Number of Oblations and Masses at his Altar, he not only exceeded all the other Saints in the Worship paid him, but where Christ had one Votary there, Becket had hundreds. The Pope, besides his Complement of Canonization, then of itself sufficient to bewitch the

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 whatsoever] ridiculous 2 He] conquered 2 – 5 ⎤ He ... Devils.⎤ 4 ⎡just⎤ | out] [[...]] 9 – 10 ⎤ He ... wrought.⎤ 13 them] [[...]] 24 ⎡from⎤ | Votaries] brought

286

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

Many to idolize Stocks and Stones and Earth, and dead Felons; further to promote the hopeful Trade, instituted a Jubilee to be celebrated once every half Century at his Tomb. It can therefore be no Marvel, that the Assassination of Becket was heightned and blackened by the Monks, beyond all the Crimes that were ever perpetrated. All the Tyranny, and Murders, since the world began, they reckoned to be many degrees below this. The impious Barbarity of the Tyrant Herod, who cut off the Head of John the Baptist; the dreadful Massacre of the Infants, by another Herod, in order to destroy the Son of God; were far short of the Guilt and Cruelty of the Assassins of Becket. His Miracles, for number and quality, were made to surpass not only those of the Apostles, but even those of Christ. The stories and traditions about the punishment and fate of the Authors of the Death of Becket, are like the Rest, all Monkish and Marvellous. During this Rage of Bigotry, the prevailing Witchcraft, and such a Harvest to the Priest from the Impieties in Vogue; we need not wonder that whatever marred their Market, must rouse all their Zeal and Fanaticism, and whoever did it be doomed to fire and sword here, besides Damnation hereafter. Nor did it cost them much Labour or Argument to persuade the mad Multitude, first carefully darkened and their reason duly abolished, to join with them in their Rage and Butchery. They needed only pronounce a couple of Words of their | own Coining, loud and vehemently, to convince and fol. 153v incense them. Heresy and Schism, Sounds never explained, or explained only by themselves, were constant and successful Spels for the Security of the Clergy and the Downfal of their Foes. By these two cant Words they have darkened, butchered and ravaged the World beyond what hostile Armies, Pestilence and Famine, have ever done. A Few Years before the Death of Becket, there arrived in England some pious Strangers from Germany, led by one Gerhard. Their quiet and devout Behaviour alarmed the Clergy, who could not brook so terrible a Pattern, with a Spirit and Purity so unlike their own. This was plainly no other than Heresy. After the poor godly Men had

3 – 15 ⎤ It can therefore Be no Marvel, ... Marvellous.⎤ 25 them.] Heretics and | ⎡and Schism,⎤

The Reign of Henry II

287

been well brow beaten, hooted and decried with all due clerical Asperity and Slander, their Persons abused, their Manners belied, and their Opinions misrepresented; they were dragged before an Assembly of their bitter Enemies, calling themselves a Council, at Oxford. fol. 154r | They, who had been already precondemned, were there recondemned. They were surrendered, for their final Punishment to the secular Arm. It was like a Snare laid for the King, that he who hated the Pope, loved not the Clergy, and had Bowels for the poor persecuted Christians, was yet forced to temporize, forced to destroy Them, in order to humour their Persecutor. They were branded in the Cheek with a hot Iron, and all Subjects forbid to give them any Relief. The People, poisoned and enchanted by their Teachers, into equal Cruelty and want of common Charity, complied with the inhuman Order more readily than they would with any Law of God. The miserable Martyrs, thus exposed to inevitable Hunger, all perished under it, with a Resolution so evangelical, with Spirits so resigned, and with such exemplary Meekness, as to utter neither Murmur nor Complaint under such inhuman Usage and all the Pangs of Famine. What Character could be more opposite to the Character of Becket and those of his Stamp? It is probable their Tenets were the same with those of the Fugitives from the Valleys of Piedmont; fol. 154v driven out by Persecution, and | mentioned by Bishop Burnet, as sometime before travelling into Germany, perhaps to their Brethren there.18 What had happened some small Time before, was another Specimen of the crazy want of Charity in those Days. As Matilda the

5

10

15

20

25

1 by ⎡with⎤ 24 Doctor ⎡Bishop⎤ 25 ⎡sometime before⎤ 18

In 1161, about thirty men and women sailed over to England from Germany. The papists called them ‘erring spirits’ and ‘publicans’, claiming they were offspring of an unknown author. Others named them as Petrobrusians, Berengarians, Poor Men of Lyons, and so on, because they apparently held views contrary to infant baptism, transubstantiation, and other tenets of the Roman Church, in common with Peter of Bruys, Berengarius of Tours, and the Waldensians. Their main leader was a certain Gerard. At Oxford they were branded on the forehead, driven out of the city, and left to die miserably from the cold. In 1687 Gilbert Burnet had published, in London and Amsterdam, a History of the Persecution in the Valleys of Piedmont.

288

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 5

King’s Daughter was betrothed to the Duke of Saxony, the Archbishop of Cologn came into England to attend her Home to her Husband. Here he and all his Train, especially the Priests, were deemed Heretics, as were all the States of Germany, for adhering to a different Pope.19 For this wise Reason the Sons of the Craft in England, though the same sort of Fanatics under a different Craftmaster, consecrated afresh all the Churches which that Archbishop and his Priests had ever defiled by saying Mass in them. Just so the Creatures of the other Pope acted elsewhere: Both Sides damned one another; and each grand Impostor mocking God, by calling himself God, consigned his Rival and Non-adorers to Satan. As if by every Action of theirs, they meant to give | a Demonstration, that they were from God. It fol. 156r was with their Measures as with their Miracles; the more impious, the more adored; the more incredible, the more believed. As if the Allwise Being, Allmerciful as well as Almighty, had given us our Senses to be smothered, instead of being used; our Reason to be distrusted, instead of consulted; and, Guides to illuminate us, by shutting our Eyes. Paschal and Alexander, the two rival Popes, damned one another as Usurpers and Impostors. The World, which ought to have treated them both, just as They treated one another, adored both, but could not agree which to adore only; whilst all agreed that one of them was and must be a Cheat. Indeed when all were Dupes, it was the less Wonder to find none owning that Character. The general Infatuation was such, that the Wit and Invention of Man could not devise blacker Actions, than such as daily passed for holy, or more enormous Lyes than were currently credited and exalted even into Miracles,

7 Church⎡es⎤ 23 ⎡only⎤ 19

Rainald of Dassel, archbishop of Cologne from 1159 to 1167, was Frederick Barbarossa’s most loyal and powerful adviser. During the schism between Pope Alexander III and Antipope Victor IV he supported the imperial pope, and when the latter died in 1164, Rainald arranged the election of another antipope, Paschal III, at Lucca. 20 A line from fol. 146v (‘What is above an equal Return, is likewise above natural Affection’) is extrapolated and copied down here (according to Walter Calverley Trevelyan, in the handwriting of Mrs Gordon).

The Reign of Henry II

289

the surest Patent and most lucrative Charm in the Market of Imposture. Henry might flatter himself with | Hopes of Ease now he was fol. 156v released from so sore a Plague and such a publick Firebrand, the more mischievous and terrible for having sanctified all his Crimes by the Name and Colour of Religion, and the more reverenced in the World for boldly affronting Heaven. But the Iniquities and Influence of pious Traitors and Enthusiasts, are so far from ending with their Lives, that they gather strength from their Punishment. The dead Becket shall prove as redoubtable as the living Becket had proved, and produce more Royal Submission and Abasement. His Father the Pope charges upon Henry the blood of his dear Son, one so truly papal, and the Scourge of his Sovereign; threatens to excommunicate the King and interdict the Kingdom, unless the King demonstrated his Sorrow for an Offence which he had not committed, by yielding to unkingly Acts of humiliation and Amends: Nay in this Proceeding, so alarming to all Kings, his Holiness was prompted by the King fol. 157r of France, who instead of punishing, was weak | enough to assist his Subject the Archbishop of Sens in stimulating the Pope thus to play the Sovereign over all Sovereigns. That Archbishop tells the Pope ‘that all Power in Heaven and Earth was given to his Holiness, to bind Kings in Chains, and their Nobles in Fetters of Iron’: He tells him ‘that the wild Boar of the Forest (King Henry) had rooted out the Vineyard of the Lord’: He calls upon him, as the Keeper of the Walls of Jerusalem, to pour forth just Vengeance. What could be safe, if Tyranny filled the Tabernacle with Blood, and tore in Pieces the Vicegerents of Christ? He then imposes him ‘to arm himself with all his ecclesiastical Terrors against that King’. This holy blasphemous Cant was natural from an Archpriest, full of the impious Merits of Becket, and of all mad ecclesiastical Claims. But it was a crazy and unnatural Strain in the King his Sovereign, to urge the Pope, as he did, ‘to unsheathe Saint Peter’s Sword, to revenge the Martyr of Canterbury, whose Blood cryed out to the Church in general, and whose heavenly Glory was already manifested in Miracles’.

3 ⎤ [[...]] of the authors of the Death of Becket [[...]]⎤ 6 Colours 7 by ⎡for⎤ 11 ⎡Royal⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

290

5

10

15

20

25

21

Chapter 5

This was the Language, not of a King, but of a Monk, against all Kings. It was the | very Stile, or rather Rant of the same Archbishop fol. 157v and probably dictated by him. Besides it was addressed to one, who wanted no Stimulation. His Holyness was eager enough of himself. He had never been able either effectually to decoy or to frighten Henry, who had a head and a heart both too manly as well as too christian, to unking himself by blindly obeying any Impostor, however named and cloathed. To so much Spirit he added proper Art, and seasonable Presents, to the Pope’s Brethren, the Cardinals, with whom a lucrative Cause never proved a bad Cause. He enforced the whole with proper Menaces, ‘to hang all the Pope’s Agents who brought over, or published any of his angry Bulls’.21 Having thus awed the Pope and calmed clerical Fury for the present, he resumed a former favorite Undertaking, whence he had been long diverted by a perverse Subject and Creature of his own. But whilst he was meditating the Conquest of Ireland, he was in Danger of being conquered by Becket, | who, strengthened by false fol. 158r Miracles, general Delusion and the mad Cry of holy Faction, shall in his Grave trample upon all the Prerogatives of the Crown, baffle the Spirit and all the Efforts of the greatest Prince that had hitherto worne it, and make him receive ignominious Laws from the Mitre. Henry trusting to present Quiet, and not foreseeing, or not fearing future Diversion and Storms from the Church, applied himself to pursue his Conquest. Conquerors never want a proper Call and Provocation, such at least as satisfies themselves, and such as they offer to satisfy others. Some of the Irish had used some of the English very ill, taking them Captives and selling them into Slavery: There-

Both English kings declared their sorrow at Becket’s death and claimed they had played no part in his murder. But their protestations did little to curb a surge of popular outrage and the demands for vengeance made by Becket’s clerks to sympathizers in France and the papal court. On 25 January 1171 the Archbishop of Sens placed an interdict on all Henry’s French fiefs. News of Becket’s death reached Alexander at Frascati in March, and on Maundy Thursday (25 March) he issued a general excommunication of the culprits and all their supporters. Shortly afterwards he confirmed the interdict and all Becket’s sentences against the English bishops, and placed a personal interdict on Henry II. However, efforts to achieve a reconciliation soon got under way, and when, on 19 May 1172, Henry submitted to the papal legates Albert and Theodwin at Avranches on agreed terms, almost everyone involved in the disputes and murder had expressed penitence and been absolved.

The Reign of Henry II

291

fore the whole Irish Nation, who had not ill used the English, are to be enslaved by the King of England. All that he needed to warrant, and even to beatify his Design, was the Pope’s Consent and Approbation. Such was the omnipotent Influence of that Phantom in those Days, and such an Opportunity he had of doing Good, if he would, by resisting Evil. But there was one sure Way of gaining his Concurrence and Blessing to the most fol. 158v guilty | Enterprizes, by coming up to his Price. Henry knew how to lure him. He borrowed the Cant of his Holiness and urged to him the Glory of God and the Good of Souls; glorious Ends, never to be obtained but by the Power of the Pope, and in order to it, the Enlargement of his Jurisdiction, and Increase of his Revenues. The Irish, though all Christians, were not papal Christians, and consequently were Schismatics: It was therefore a laudable Task to force them to be Catholics, or to knock them on the head, and to punish them for being in a State of Damnation, which was the worst Punishment of all.22 If Henry, who knew what the Pope could do to assist, or to disappoint him, wheedled him to carry his Point; the Pope, who had likewise his Points to carry, treated Henry with great Courtesy and Art, and made a rare Bargain for himself, in the name of Religion and the Church. In his Answer to Henry, he owns, ‘that the King’s Zeal deserves high Praises, and is worthy of a Catholic Prince’; in other fol. 159r Words a good Subject of | the Pope: ‘since it was to enlarge the Bounds of the Church, (the Pope’s Dominions) and to plant Truth amongst the ignorant and barbarous’, that is, to introduce popish Tenets and the Pope’s Authority, instead of plain Christianity. He takes notice of ‘the King’s applying to him for Countenance and

5

10

15

20

25

1 not] done 9 ⎡to⎤ 26 ⎡to⎤ introduces 22

The establishment of a lordship in Ireland by King Henry II of England was famously justified by the provisions of the Papal Bull Laudabiliter. Named after its opening word, it purported to be a letter from Adrian IV to Henry II, written in 1155, in which the king was urged to invade Ireland and to bring the Celtic Christian Church into the Roman fold. There is no consensus as to whether the bull was genuine or not. In 1172, the new pope, Alexander III, encouraged Henry to proceed with the integration of the Irish Church with Rome. Henry was authorised to impose an annual tithe of one penny per hearth. Known as ‘Peter’s Pence’, it still exists in Ireland in the form of a voluntary donation.

292

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

Instruction: which being a proper Step, his Holiness is confident his Enterprize will prosper, as undertaken from a Principle of Faith and Religion’, namely, a Spirit of Popery. He represents it to the King as ‘a Point notoriously allowed, that Ireland and all Islands, that are blessed with the Gospel (a Gospel explained by the Pope, else it is none) are St Peter’s Property’, consequently subject to the Jurisdiction of the Pope. He therefore recommends it to the King ‘to settle Colonies of the Faithful there’; namely Colonies of Papists to reclaim, or exterminate the Natives, who are only Christians, and do not own the Pope. He reminds the King of what he hath engaged to do, ‘to reduce that Island to just Laws (the Will and Laws of the Pope) and to root out Vice (Schism) which flourished there; to procure | from thence yearly fol. 159v Rents to the Church, to enlarge her Bounds (more Power and more Money) and to support all her Rights (all the Pope’s Pretensions and Tyranny) to check Immorality (non-subjection to the Pope) and to advance Virtue and Religion’, namely papal Superstition and Blindness: For the Christian Religion was universally received there. The simple Irish entertained no disbelief of Revealed Religion, much less any Doubts about it. They were therefore as good Christians as he could make them, and Friends to the Creeds. But every Impostor, every Enthusiast, denies or condemns all Religion but his own, or rather all but what he gets by. He again and again repeats and dwells upon the same equivocal knavish Cant, about ‘the Honour of God (the Interest of Rome) the Salvation of Souls (their blind Servitude to Popery)’. He charges the People to ‘submit to Henry, as their Liege Lord; provided always, that the Rights of the Church be inviolably preserved | and Peter Pence be fol. 160r duly paid (all his own boundless Claims, and all his own forged Rents); That the Church (for He the Pope was the Church) may be inriched more and more, Religion (Popery) flourish, and all Things tending to the Honour of God and good of Souls (what these things were, the Pope was to explain, nor need they to be explained) may be so disposed (of all which his Holiness was to judge) as to entitle the King to an eternal Reward in Heaven (which however if he dis-

15 its ⎡her⎤ 30 ⎡He⎤ Hthe | [[...]] ⎡was⎤

The Reign of Henry II

293

pleased the Pope, he could not have) and immortal Fame in Earth’, still with the Pope’s Consent and good Pleasure. Perhaps there never was a Letter penned by any Pope or other Impostor more fraught with Hypocrisy, Cant and Fraud. There is Deceit in every Word; and the Names of God and Religion were never more profanely prostituted, even for the Ends and Service of Churchmen. In short it is a Letter written by a Pope to cheat and bind a King, to blind him with fair Declarations, all to cover foul Designs. Nor could there be a surer Rule of serving God and the King, than by opposing all the Views and Measures of the Pope and fol. 160v his Followers. His Holiness who pretended to | be King of all Kingdoms, reserves the Government of Ireland to himself, and only permits the King to be his Deputy. Henry, who had this Conquest at Heart, would not quarrel with the Pope’s Letter for its doubtful and knavish Terms, which he was resolved, after the Pope’s Example, to interpret to his own Advantage. The Right of a Conqueror, is Power to conquer: Henry had no other to Ireland, yet just as much to take it, as the Pope had to give it; and his Holiness might with equal Assurance and Title, have disposed of a Planet, or a Piece of the Sky. The Invitation of a fugitive Prince from that Country, one driven out of his Dominions, for his Tyranny, was no just Call to invade it; since the Inviter had no Dominions or Jurisdiction to transfer. He however furnished Henry with what Henry wanted, a Colour for an Invasion. He said ‘that he was by Violence divested of his Crown; and if Henry would restore fol. 161r him, he would | wear it as his Vassal’. This was Dermot, King of Leinster, one of the six Kings of Ireland, and one of the first for Power and Territory; as Roderic King of Connaught was the Chief. Dermot, naturally a Tyrant, having no war with his Neighbours, thought that he had a Prerogative to oppress and afflict his Subjects, and might safely exercise it. He did not consider that whenever he quarrelled with his Neighbours, as he soon did, he could have no Hopes of Support from his People, and, if attacked from abroad, had no resource at home. He quickly made the Experiment: For having robbed O-Roric, King of Meath, of his Queen, and the King of Con22 one] who being | ⎡his1⎤ 29 Con⎡n⎤aught

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

294

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

naught joining with O-Roric, as in a common Cause; he was attacked by both, denied Assistance by the Rest, abandoned by his People; and destitute of every other Resource, betook himself to the worst, by betraying his Country to an Invader. The King received his Offer kindly, and promised him strenuous Assistance, when the War was over with France, where Henry then was, and in the mean Time recommended him to some English Barons, brave and | powerful Men, and able to yield him present Suc- fol. 161v cour. Dermot repaired to England; where he found two English Lords ready to treat with him, and to embark in his Quarrel. They were Robert Fitz Stephen and Richard de Clare, Earl of Pembroke, nicknamed Strongbow; a very powerful Subject; the former engaged by the prospect of a great Estate in Ireland; the latter had the Promise of Dermot ’s only Daughter, and of the Kingdom with her after the Death of Dermot. Fitz Stephen was ready first, and accompanied Dermot to Ireland, with no more than four hundred Men. This small Force had inviting Beginnings and incredible Success. They took the City of Wexford, and in it settled an English Colony. Other Adventurers soon arriving, the little Army appeared so formidable, that an Irish King (of Ossory) rather than encounter them, yielded to the Terms of the Invaders, and became their Vassal. Even the King of | Connaught, the fol. 162r most powerful of the six, though encouraged by the States of his Kingdom, purposely assembled, was willing to try any expedient rather than fighting. He had first had Recourse to Bribes, and that Method failing, he proposed a Negociation, and offered Dermot his Kingdom again, if he would send away the English. Dermot agreed; but though he had introduced them, he could not dismiss them. His weight, though the Author of the War, was perhaps now the Smallest. The Face of a Treaty was still carried on, when the Earl of Pembroke landed with twelve hundred Men, took Waterford, put the Inhabitants to the Sword, and forthwith put an End to all Treating: He then married Dermot ’s Daughter, and (her Father soon after dying) took Possession of the Kingdom of Leinster. The Adventurers proceeded with great Rapidity, and improving the extreme Terror,

25 ⎡had1⎤ 26 ⎡Μethod⎤ 35 Adventure⎡r⎤s

The Reign of Henry II

295

which they found the Irish under, scarce met with any Opposition from Princes or Places. A few English Men, and Cross Bows, such Arms and such Foes as they had never encountered before, quickly overcame all Opposition. fol. 162v | Henry was pleased with the Success of the Undertaking, but jealous of the Undertakers, as depriving him of the Honour and Advantages which he aimed at for himself. To bring them to his own Terms, he not only prohibited the Exportation of Provisions and warlike Stores from England, but commanded all his English Subjects, on pain of Forfeiture to return from Ireland. His Policy had the desired effect. The Adventurers were alarmed: They sent Deputies to the King with humble Assurances of their Fealty, and a Tender of all their Conquests. Such Suppleness pleased him: Besides they granted him what he demanded, the Possession of the Sea-Ports; and he allowed them the Rest of the Country, to be, however, all holden from Him and his Successors. After these Stipulations, Henry landed in Ireland, at the Head of an Army so formidable to a People already beaten and frighted, that they all submitted at once; and the several Irish Kings, instead of fol. 163r joining like Men to | maintain their Independency and defend their Country, against a foreign Invader, hurried to attend him at his Court in Waterford, each of them striving for the earliest Merit in swearing Allegiance to him. Perhaps there never was such a bloodless Conquest of a great Kingdom so full of People. He came, as it proved, not to conquer, but to take possession. He had nothing further to do, but to settle some Garrissons, and to establish a Form of Government. This he did at Dublin, with the Concurrence of the Adventurers. Hugh de Lacy was left by him chief Governor of the Island, with the Title of Justiciary. Henry then straight returned to England, whither we shall soon follow him, and find the Reason of his hastning so soon thither.23

5

10

15

20

25

30

11 Adventure⎡r⎤s 15 ⎡however, all⎤ heold⎡en⎤ for ever 23

Gordon’s account of the Cambro-Norman invasion of Ireland appears to be greatly indebted to Rapin.

296

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

Ireland, which seemed so great an Acquisition to England, proved a sore plague to it. It was conquered in an Instant, but could not be tamed in many Centuries. It drained England of many brave Men, who degenerated in their new Settlement; and their Race, by living amongst Savages, and intermarrying with them, became soon savage. | It was a noble Island, fair and fertile, its Inhabitants numer- fol. 163v ous, its Situation fortunate, its Air temperate, its Harbours many and good, and every natural Advantage to be found in it. But the Natives, like many others in the finest Regions of the Globe, were, at least then, barbarous, brutal, gross in their Manners, infamous in their Morals, void of Courage, of Decency, and indeed of humanity. Had they been capable of Reformation, the Conquest of them might have been a Blessing to themselves. But as they were irreclaimable, they proved a Burden and a Curse to the Conquerors. Besides, they were never thoroughly or near subdued. Nor could the English pursue, much less finish the Conquest, so as to make it compleat. The civil Wars at home kept them employed at home; some of them so early as Henry the 2d their first Conqueror, who was harrassed by his turbulent and rebellious Sons. The Phrenzy of the Holy War, and the | terrible Effects of it, diverted King Richard all fol. 164r his Reign. King John’s Wars with the Barons, with the Pope and the French, kept that King’s hands constantly full. Henry the 3d was a Wretch, without Capacity or heart, unfit for any Undertaking and ridiculous in all. Edward the 1st was chiefly engaged against the Scotch and Welsh, as was Edward the 3d against France. His Grandson, Richard the 2d was a weak Prince, below Royalty, and above Advice. So had been Edward the 2d. Henry the 4th was taken up with securing himself in the Throne; Henry the 5th with the Conquest of France. Henry the 6th was a poor Spirit, governed by a Woman, and opposed by a very brave Prince, Edward the 4th. All these bloody Contests in England left the Irish great Liberty to live their own way, to encroach upon their Governors, and to recover large Territories. They had the greater Opportunity or rather Encouragement as the several English Chiefs amongst them, instead of awing and curbing the Irish, were combating one another, according to their several Attachments, or Antipathies, to the Grand Com-

15 th⎡o⎤roughly 21 ⎡with2⎤ 30 opposed] by opposed

The Reign of Henry II

297

fol. 164v petitors for the Crown in | England. Thus weakning themselves, they

rendered the disaffected and desperate Natives, daily stronger and bolder. From the Beginning of the Conquest, great Numbers of the Irish, especially the forfeited and fugitive, all that were undone, or feared to be, all that were bigotted to their old beastly Customs, with all who were obnoxious to the Law and the Conquerors, had retired to inaccessible Solitudes in the Bogs, Woods, and Mountains, and occupied several inland Counties intire; where, joined by the original Inhabitants, as brutal and outragious as themselves, they filled large Districts, whence, upon every Occasion, they issued in bloody Swarms, to invade and rob and destroy the English, and proved inexhaustible Swarms of Rebells and Robbers. The only likely Attempt to master the whole Country was made by the Duke of Clarence, Brother to Edward the 4th.24 He married the Heiress of Ulster, tried to reclaim the Natives, and to restore the r fol. 165 Power of the English: | He drove the Rebels from their Encroachments into their Fastnesses and Deserts, built Castles to repress their Excursions, and fortified the Passes. But upon his being recalled by the Civil Wars in England, the former Confusions in Ireland returned and increased. Henry the 7th, a Prince of much low Craft, was fonder of the safe Custody than the Glory of his Crown, rather enslaved by a blind thirst for money than animated by a Kingly spirit, or any laudable maxims of Government. No wonder he would run no risque, nor spend money to reclaim and ensure Ireland. His Son in the first part of his Reign was resigned to his pleasures, and to Cardinal Wolsey, an Instrument wholly intent upon misguiding the King and aggrandizing himself. In the latter part of it that Prince was employed in quarrelling with the Pope and his wives; and having small regard to public affairs, where they promised no private Gratification, was the author of little national Good, but what he never intended.

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 ⎡for the Crown⎤ 21 – 31 ⎤ Henry the 7th, ... intended.⎤ 21 ⎡was⎤ 24 [[...]] ⎡run⎤ 25 Son], who 26 ⎡to2⎤ 27 misguiding] him 29 and2] [[...]] 24 Lionel of Antwerp, duke of Clarence (1338–68), was the second son of Edward III to survive infancy, and the younger brother of Edward, the Black Prince (whose death preceded that of his father). Lionel’s wife was Elizabeth de Burgh, the daughter of William, the third earl of Ulster. He was the Chief Governor of Ireland from 1361 to 1367.

298

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 5

Every Clan amongst the Irish seems to have been a separate State; and the Lord of the Clan, a little Monarch, who had an apparent Interest in keeping them savage, and encouraging them in all Disorders and Riot; since out of their Disorders and Crimes his chief Revenue arose. He had a Judge called the Brehon, and from him the Administration of Justice was called the Brehon Law.25 By the Brehon every Offence was rated, and such a Forfeit was incurred, as he thought fit to adjudge, always a heavy one, as a great Part of it went to the Lord, and no inconsiderable Part to himself for his Judgment; the small Remainder to the Party offended. This Composition atoned for the highest Villanies, Robbery and Murder; nor was the lowest Offence exempt from it, and the most innocent Actions were therefore thus punished as heinous Crimes. A Murderer was only punished with a small Fine to the | Relations of the Person fol. 165v murdered; because the Lord and the Judge might have a much larger. This mock Justice and real Oppression they not only bore but reverenced: Their Forefathers did so; they saw it practised in every Clan; and, like other wild Customs and Tenets; the more absurd the more sacred. Here was a Law to abolish Morality, to propagate all Barbarity, all Vice and Villany, to sanctify the highest Tyranny and the lowest Servitude, yet so blindly rivetted in their Esteem, that they held for the worst Tyrants whoever would have released them from it, as they would themselves for the worst Slaves for being so released. They had equal Fondness for their other Usages, most of them savage, almost all base and pernicious. They were likewise extremely debauched and intoxicated with Ryming Strollers, called Bards, who by their Invectives awed, or by their Flattery charmed the Country; wretches highly revered, who, for the Present of a Ewe, would | deify the most execrable Criminal, fol. 166r and, for the Refusal of such a Gift, would blacken and belye the most harmless and virtuous Man. All the Sons of Rapine and Violence, were haunted, and worshipped and animated by these leud Panegyr-

5 ⎡him⎤ 6 him ⎡the Brehon⎤ 10 Compos⎡i⎤tion 23 and ⎡as they⎤ 28 ⎡wretches highly⎤ | revered] [[...]] 32 [[...]] ⎡worshipped⎤ 25

Brehon law is the customary term for Irish native law, as administered until almost the middle of the seventeenth century. Its name derives from the Irish word Breitheamh (genitive Breitheamhan, pronounced Brehoon or Brehon), meaning ‘a judge’.

The Reign of Henry II

299

ists. ‘Rapes, Depredations and Murders were in their strains, all Acts of Heroism, and They the greatest Heroes who committed most: Innocence was Cowardice: A Life of Peace was a Life of Sloth. Feats of Treachery and Surprize, were proofs of Sagacity and Councel. Theft and Lying were Acts of Policy. Conflagration and Massacre were lawful War and Victory’. Upon these admired exploits and upon this thriving Trade of violence and Barbarity these Bards bestowed their whole Time and Imagination: Their Rants were laboured and striking: The more they perverted Truth, the more they shewed their Parts; the more they beautified the Efforts of Savageness and Barbarity, the more they succeeded; the better they were paid. Perhaps there never was a People more formed for Brutishness, Barbarism and the most shocking Immoralities. Their Customs and Dress, and even the Fashion of their Hair, were all adapted to a v fol. 166 Course of Nastiness and| Vice, Leudness and Craft; to propagate Theft, Robbery and Murder, and to secure and disguise Thieves, Robbers and Murderers. The English, sent over to reform, as well as to govern them, were generally infected and corrupted by them, into all their foul, their inhuman, and godless Habits. Even the great English Lords, instead of curing them of their Barbarity, protected and encouraged them in it. These Lords, falling into Factions amongst themselves, striving for priority, and sacrifizing national Prosperity to personal Pride, strove who should most court, and consequently most strengthen the Irish, in order to strengthen themselves by the Irish. Thus they soon restored them to the Mastery of the Country, and supported them in it; or, which is the same thing, enabled them to support themselves. These English Leaders therefore in Time, often in a short Time, grew Irish Leaders, and at length real wild Irish. They did as the natfol. 167r ive Irish | had done, and were eternally pulling down one another. So that the Country never was, never had been without intestine Wars, many at a Time. Two great English Chiefs at last Subdued, or gained most of the Rest. They were the Fitz Geralds and Butlers, who continuing the Competition and making it more general, therefore more 1 ⎡in their strains,⎤ 7 and ⎡exploits and upon this⎤ 9 stricking 14 [[...]] ⎡Customs⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

7 – 8 ⎡of violence and Barbarity⎤

300

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 5

dangerous, had acquired such Influence, that the Governors sent from England, though often men of great Favour and Weight, found it necessary to caress them, as they were not able to quell them; and thus to secure to themselves the name of Governors, and their Credit at home, shewed such Connivance and made such Concessions, as rendered these false Friends still more formidable Enemies.26 Our Great Queen Elizabeth, much greater than most of her Predecessors, first effectually broke the savage Spirit of that Country. Two of the succeeding Princes restored them, or enabled them to restore themselves. Cromwell (who acted so much like a great Prince, that it is pity he had not been a just one) re-subdued them; and King James the 2d out of Zeal for the Mass and lawless Power (as if | they fol. 167v and He were fit for no other) as a Sample of his own, gave to that savage Nation what was neither his nor theirs, the Estates and Throats of a brave Protestant People; who were forced to redeem their Lives and Fortunes by the Sword, from a Protector who strove to destroy them. The Sword and great Name of our King William awed and corrected them so effectually, that they have not since ventured their Necks by open Rebellion. I have often heard it asserted by Gentlemen of that Country, that the Irish are naturally a generous, friendly and merciful People, sensible, and capable of any Improvements in War and Sciences, and all useful Arts; but so bewitched, and even possessed with their Clergy, as to be unreclaimable Bigots to whatever the Clergy like, and that these finding the grossest Barbarity in the People necessary to render them effectually the blind Slaves of the Priests, carefully keep them in all Darkness and Brutality, rob them of their Senses and Feeling, | frighten them from the Approach of Knowledge and Happi- fol. 168r ness, inspire them with Antipathy to Protestants and all Refinements, and even with Ardour, for Murder and Massacre and every Strain of Barbarity.

8 first] first 12 ⎡the 2d⎤ | to ⎡for⎤ 12 – 13 he and they ⎡they and He⎤ 27 Blindness ⎡Darkness⎤ | Barbarity ⎡Brutality⎤ 31 St⎡r⎤ain 26

25 ⎡necessary⎤

The rivalry between the Butlers, the earls of Ormond, and the Fitzgeralds, the earls of Kildare, two of Ireland’s wealthiest and most powerful Anglo-Irish families, apparently ended in 1492.

The Reign of Henry II

301

What will not a Man do for his Soul, when governed by one who has the keeping of his Soul, and can fix or alter its eternal Destiny? When the Government can only hang, and the Priest can damn, who would not rather be hanged than damned; especially when by the Gallows he thinks that he earns Salvation? Moreover, if one who does not believe his own Doctrine, can yet by seeming to believe, guide and actuate and inflame Believers; how much more keenly must real Zeal incite Bigots to propagate Bigotry, and to distress whoever opposes it, or even refuses to join in it? For false Religion alone is prone to Rage and Cruelty, which are as much the Badges of false Religion, as Meekness and Mercy are of the true. Credulity and Bigotry have no Doubts: They are always in the Right, especially when farthest from Reason. It is thence easie to guess, indeed it is daily seen, how powerfully Dunces govern Dunces. fol. 168v | It is therefore no wonder that the Irish Priests, most of them gross as Swine, exercise such Sovereignty over Minds no grosser than their own; when these Minds are convinced that their Priests are Vice Deities able to send them, at their Pleasure, to God or to Satan. The Task of the Priest is an easy one, since his Followers chearfully submit to it. It is on infinite Importance to him to hold them in thick Ignorance and Brutality; for if They lose These, he loses Them; and the same Light which would banish Darkness, would banish Him: A Disaster which can never befall him, whilst They think Him holy and wise, and themselves happy under his wise and holy Instruction. From the same Principle and Stupidity they hate, as he teaches them to hate, all who differ from him. Thus he perpetuates their Savageness and his own Sway. This is but one Instance of the shocking and marvellous Miseries fol. 169r which Men and Nations bear with consent, and | even with Approbation, from Impostors under the Name of Religion. When these Impostors are left to determine whatever concerns Religion, they always determine what is best for themselves, and may bring the wretched People, their devoted Bubbles, to live upon Onions and Garlick, and even to adore these rank Vegetables as Deities, provided they be furnished, still from the same Dupes the People, with better Provisions

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

7 keen⎡ly⎤ 13 therefore ⎡thence⎤ 18 Gods, and ⎡Vice Deities⎤ 25 ⎡as⎤ 26 – 27 Brutality ⎡Savageness⎤ 31 it ⎡Religion⎤ 34 them ⎡these rank Vegetables⎤

302

5

10

15

20

25

30

for themselves. It has been the general Course and Curse of the World, that when any Profit could be made of Religion, all Religion was turned into Profit; yet all Men were vilified and cursed who discovered, much more who maintained, this glaring Truth. Whilst they who belied the Deity, were Saints; they who exposed the Lye, and vindicated the Deity, were Atheists. Nothing can so clearly demonstrate what wonderful Blindness religious Deceivers keep the World in, than that the abused world shew any Respect to such pernicious Deceivers. Surely Mankind are called upon, by their own Example, to treat them all as they all treat one another. All of one Sect expose, revile and are even for extirpating those of every other Sect: Yet every Man must agree with every Sect, or be cursed and | persecuted by all Sects, if he be of none. fol. 169v The Christian Religion which is the best, has been used the worst, been perverted to draw more wealth and Power to its Teachers, all drained and extorted from the Christian People, all applied worse, more to the Purpose of Pride and Tyranny, than all the false Religions in the World ever were, since the Beginning of it. Did the Priests of Baal,27 of Bell and the Dragon,28 or the Priests of all the false Gods whatsoever, commit such Frauds, waste and exhaust and cheat the World so much, inculcate such Contradictions, spread such Darkness, forge such lying Miracles, rivet such heavy Chains, or shed such Seas of Blood, as the Priests of Rome have done, and daily do? The Irish Priests are the Priests of Rome, her Foster-Sons, and the Foster-Fathers of beastly Barbarity and savage Ignorance, amongst the Irish. Surely some Reformation might have been made amongst them, if the professed Reformers had been active and in earnest. | But when Protestant Ministers acted as the Irish Priests act, fol. 170r applied themselves to secular Pursuits, they might talk of converting Souls, but the unconverted, who saw how they behaved, little minded what they talked, further than to laugh at it. Besides, if they started and maintained the same wild Pretensions to divine apostolic Mission, to be more than Men, though Men made them what they

18 ⎡ever were⎤ 31 ⎤ See the Earl of Strafford’s Letters. ⎤ 27 28

Chapter 5

I Kings 18. 19–40; II Kings 10. 18–28. Daniel 14.

The Reign of Henry II

303

were, and claimed as a Right from Heaven what they evidently derived from the Law; by all this, they not only adopted the Language, the Weapons, and false Claims of the Romish Priests, but warranted the Romish Priests in the original Use of such Weapons, and in a prior, therefore a better Right to them, if not the only Right. If moreover they did nothing at all themselves, seldom resided amongst the Papists, in some Places never resided; if they only maintained Curates, who once a Week only harangued upon a Text, perhaps not against Popery, perhaps rather in favour of it, in defence of chimerical Church Power; nor before Papists, but in a Church where Papists never came; had not such Conduct rather a Tendency to confirm Papists, than to convert them? v | I have been told, that in Consequence of the common Comfol. 170 plaint, indeed loud Cry, against such Non-Residence and Neglect, the principal Non-Residing Clergymen (most of them nobly endowed, else they must have resided) when reprimanded before the Privy Council, gave for a Reason of their Non-Residence, ‘that their Parishioners were all Papists’: As if it had not been their Business, their chief and only Business, to convert Papists, if they had been really Enemies to Popery, as doubtless they all professed to be. But what are Professions when compared with Actions? It will still be inferred from the infinite Swarms, the unlessened Swarms of Papists in Ireland, how little Pains the Clergy of Ireland have taken to make them Protestants, and consequently how little they answered the Ends of the Gospel, or of their Preferment; as also what small Regard or Gratitude they have paid to that Government, which preferred and protected them, by not strengthening its hands, in reducing the r fol. 171 Number of | Papists, all known and implacable Enemies to the Government. Besides if they believe the Souls of Papists to be in danger, why not labour to remove that Danger?(a) The Return of Henry from his sudden Conquest, was a Call from Rome in behalf of Becket, though killed, not conquered, and more

(a)

5

10

15

20

25

30

See Ld Stafford’s Letters, concerning the Idleness, insufficiency and Corruption of the Protestant Clergy in Ireland.

10 ⎡but⎤ 11 Papists] in a Church where Papists 14 of such ⎡against such⎤ 25 ⎡of2⎤

304

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 5

redoubtable in his Grave than a Kingdom just subdued and therefore incensed. The Pope had sent Legates into Normandy to hold an Inquest (against the King) for the Blood of that Incendiary. There Henry met them, and continued under the Examination of these Pedants, at best unequal and impartial Judges, for the Space of four Months, exposed to long and laboured Accusations, embittered with all aggravations, spiteful Tales, false Evidence, Hearsays, and forced Constructions. For, by the Pope’s Order and good Policy, he was first to be humbled with heavy Imputations of Guilt, then to be obliged in Proportion, by a full Absolution for so grievous a Crime; but an Absolution clogged with most mortifying Terms to a Prince or a Man. First, he was forced to swear solemnly to his Innocence of the Murder, that he neither | ordered, nor approved it; then to declare fol. 171v publickly his extreme Sorrow for any Words of his that might occasion it, with his Readiness to undergo any Pennance which the Legates should impose. Nor was all this provoking and unprincely Humiliation enough. There are more bitter and unkingly Articles still to follow. He expressly bound himself, never to thwart the Will of the Pope, so long as the Pope treated the King as became a Catholic Prince; a very equivocal Article, subject to much knavish wrangling: secondly, never to oppose any Appeals to the Holy-See. By which he owned the Pope’s Sovereignty over himself and his English Subjects. Thirdly, he was to fight in Person, and maintain an Army in the Holy-Land, or pay the Knights-Templars for doing it in his Place. I have, in a former Reign, explained the Madness and wicked Motives of these Holy-Wars. Fourthly, to recall all such rebellious Adherents of Becket as yet remained in Exile: Whence his Holiness divested the King of a Power essential to Kingship, of punishing | Rebels to their fol. 172r King. Fifthly, to abolish all Laws prejudicial to the Church. This was in effect obliging him to abolish the Law itself; since no sound Law could square with what his Holiness called or might call the Interest of the Church: Farewell particularly to the famous, offensive Statutes of Clarendon. It was likewise obliging the King to force the Parlia-

26 before ⎡in a former Reign,⎤ 32 ⎡what⎤

The Reign of Henry II

305

ment, since without them no Laws could be made or unmade: And the Acts of Clarendon were favorite Acts of the States.29 All these were public Injunctions, made known to all Men. There was a secret one added, altogether barbarous and pedantic, obliging the King of England to repair barefooted to his Traitor’s Tomb, there to be scourged by the Monks of the Place. A wonderful Abasement in a King, a King too of such Power and Spirit; scarce credible to rational Heathens; springing from the unnatural Pride and Usurpation of ghostly Tyrants, an Estrangement from Christianity, and a loud warning to all Christian Princes and Christian Societies. Henry had long opposed the infamous Demands and Dominafol. 172v tion of Rome; and all | the Powers of Christendom ought to have supported him in resisting a common Impostor, who asserted the same fairy, tyrannical Claim over them all. But some, through Blindness, being already long bewitched by him; some through Necessity, being long enthralled by him; some through Folly and false Policy, such as Passion always inspires, left Henry to struggle alone against a Power then almost too hard for all, and even aided that Power against him. The King of France, jealous of Henry, was the Pope’s Champion against him, though the Pope was truly his most unnatural and unchangeable Enemy; an Enemy indeed, who pretended to give and take away all Crowns. Nothing could be plainer than this, and nothing ought to have alarmed Lewis more. But, besides his Inveteracy against Henry, he was weak enough to be a Dupe to the Sanctity of Becket, and thus encouraged the Pope to domineer over himself, by helping the Pope to domineer over Henry. | Enthusiasm is as Contagious as the Plague. Nor was any Plague fol. 173r ever so destructive as Enthusiasm. The Pestilence is spread by infected Air, and departs when the Air is purified. Enthusiasm seizes the Head and the Heart of Man, and is continued and increased by the Arts and Interests of Men; and where ever Interest is found, Art will be active and everlasting. Henry seems to have given way to Credulity and false ghostly Fears; else he would have continued firm. For his Affairs were flourishing; and though he might find many uneasi-

7 ⎡a King2⎤ 17 him ⎡Henry⎤ 29

Compromise of Avranches, Normandy (21 May 1172).

5

10

15

20

25

30

306

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 5

nesses in his Family, from the Jealousy of his Wife, and the Ambition of his Sons, it doth not appear that he yet knew of any Plots against him there. He seems rather to have thought that he had now mastered all Difficulties. Conspiracies against a Prince in his own Family, are the more dangerous as they are less expected; and lying at first in few Hands, are the easiest to conceal. Besides, they invite, at least encourage other Conspiracies; and when his Wife or Sons are Traitors, it is an Incitement or rather a Warrant to his Subjects to be Rebels. | When a Queen conspires against her Husband, fol. 174r she rarely fails to find Accomplices. All who are disappointed of Preferment, though they merit none, or have more than they merit, will be apt to join with her. If her Children conspire with her, they too will have their Followers; and whatever private and selfish Views animate them all to disturb and rend the Public, every Individual will plead confidently the public Good. Queen Eleanor was piqued, that the King kept a Mistress more amiable than herself; and, whilst by her ill humour, she drove him from her own Arms, she was enraged at his Retreat to the Charms and Complaisance of Rosamond.30 This was a Crime, but not against the Public; and the Queen committed a greater, if, as it is said, she murdered the Mistress, and a greater still by involving the Public in her particular Vengeance. Ladies are not the more indulgent to the Gallantries of a Husband, for having once indulged themselves in Gallantry. Eleanor had been once thought so guilty that way, as to have been punished with a Divorce. Her Guilt was further aggravated by her instigating | her Sons to rebel against their King and fol. 174v Father, Nature and Duty.31 The Sons were easily corrupted; all three

19 Retreat] [[...]] 23 less ⎡more⎤ 30

Rosamund Clifford (before 1150–c. 1176), often known as ‘Fair Rosamund’ or ‘Rose of the World’, was Eleanor of Aquitaine’s great rival, and one of the most famous mistresses in English history. 31 Henry, Geoffrey, Richard, and John mistrusted each other and were resentful both of their father’s practice of dividing up land between them and of his reluctance to give them any real responsibility. Serious family disputes occurred in 1173, 1181, and 1184. The rebellion, long contemplated, was fomented by Louis VII of France, and involved Flanders and Scotland. Eleanor was seized before it broke out (1173) and did not regain her liberty until Henry’s death in 1189.

The Reign of Henry II

307

had their separate Disgusts, the eldest to see himself a King only in name, without any kingly Authority; an unpardonable Grievance to a proud Spirit like his: Richard was mad with Fire and Passion, to be called Earl of Poitou, and yet have no Dominion there: Geofry thought himself mocked with the Title of Bretany, whilst his Father held the Government; as He thought, a needless or rather usurping Guardian. Many English Lords, weary of the Times from present Discontents, and better hopes in a Change of Kings, abetted the Conspiracy. The King of France, a constant Rival to Henry, whom he always feared and hated, came eagerly into a Design to depose him, and engaged in it several of his most powerful Vassals and Relations, particularly the Earls of Flanders, Boulogne and Blois. r This was a powerful and terrible | League, made more so by the fol. 175 Accession of William the Scottish King, who hoped by it to recover the Territories held formerly in England, but lately given back by his Brother Malcolm. King Henry’s Danger was the greater, for that he dreamed of none, much less of a Conspiracy already formed and so extensive. He had indeed Cause to believe his eldest Son to be greatly discontented. For, he had exclaimed loudly against a Settlement which his Father had offered to make upon his Son John, for whom he sought in Marriage a Daughter of Hubert Earl of Maurienne. The young King alledged it ‘to be strange Partiality in the Father, to confer Dominions upon his youngest Son, whilst he allowed none to his eldest, who was mocked with the Title of King, without the support’. Such free Language perhaps he had not used but at the Instigation of the French King, his Wife’s Father, who, under Colour of a Desire to see his Daughter, had drawn him to Paris, with the old King’s Consent, and detained him longer there than was Necessary for a Visit, only in order thoroughly to incense him, and to adjust with him the v fol. 175 Operation of the Conspiracy. Henry from the | Time of his Son’s return (which had proved much slower than he liked) began to

5

10

15

20

25

30

5 Bretanny The king’s efforts to find an inheritance for John aroused the opposition of Richard and of Philip II of France, and Henry was forced to back down. His death on 6 July 1189 was hastened by news that John had also turned against him.

308

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

watch him narrowly; as did the Son to dread the Father: He indeed seized the first Opportunity to escape from him, and fly to the French King. Thither, upon this News, Queen Eleanor sent two of her other Sons Richard and Geofry, for the same purpose and from the same Fear. These Steps allarmed Henry; rather than informed him. The first that he himself took was to imprison the Queen. He had soon ample Information of the Design, from so many different Quarters, and Attacks from so many formidable Enemies, enow to startle the boldest Spirit. No man was fitter than Henry both in Bravery and Ability, to meet them all. As he had foreseen no War, he was prepared for none; and saw himself beset with many at once. The King of France, aided by his Allies and Vassals, invaded Normandy; as did the Scottish King the Northern Counties: An Army from France, under the | Earl fol. 176r of Leicester, made a Descent upon England: In England itself a general Revolt was excited and expected. Richard raised a Rebellion in Guienne. Geofry made a Revolt in Bretany. The young King still at Paris acted as sole Monarch of England, received Oaths and Homage, and issued Grants, whole Counties at once: Northumberland to the King of Scots; to that King’s Brother, those of Huntington and Cambridge; besides Cities and Castles to his Confederates in England. He even made a new great Seal; encouraged in all this by the King of France, who believing himself, and making his Son in Law believe, that the Ruin of Henry was inevitable, affected to treat his Name and Measures with Jests and Contempt. He will soon see all his unmanly Sport spoiled, and himself the forlorn Contempt of Henry. Surely no Prince ever acquitted himself with more vigour or more surprizing Success, sooner scattered so many Perils and hostile Armies, or triumphed so suddenly over so many formidable Enemies, or shined more brightly either as a Hero or a Politician. His great Enemy and unequal Rival, the French King, after a long and fruitless Siege of a Norman City, with a | great Force, at the Sight of the Eng- fol. 176v lish, who advanced to raise it, ran vigorously away, after doing another notable Feat of Cowardice, by setting the City on Fire. A number of Troops from Brabant, in the Service of Henry restored the

9 ⎡Attacks⎤ | many] different and 17 Bretagn⎡ny⎤

The Reign of Henry II

309

Peace of Bretany, beat the Revolters and took many of their Chief Leaders. The French Army in England under the Earl of Leicester, was routed and the Earl taken Prisoner. This Victory was won by the Great Constable de Bohun, during a politic short Truce made with the King of Scots. That King, outwitted in the Truce, was ruined by renewing the War. Whilst he was ravaging the Country, chiefly intent upon Plunder, the same English General, surprized his Army, routed it, and took the King Prisoner. Henry soon reduced all his Provinces and Cities abroad to Submission and Peace. Fortune and the Winds helped Him, not only by holding the King his Son with an Army of French and Flemings from fol. 177r embarking for England till the Tranquillity of England was | restored, but by dispersing the Ships for Embarkation. That King and his Army were so sure of being masters of the Kingdom, that Philip Earl of Flanders had sworn solemnly upon the Gospel, that in a few Weeks he would make Henry the younger, Sovereign of England; though that Earl had then sent over but about three hundred Men, to attempt the Siege of Norwich. The King, at his Return to England, did a Thing beneath his great Spirit and the many shining Exploits of his Reign. From Southampton he repaired, not like a victorious King to his Capital, but like a crazy Pilgrim to Canterbury, there to pay his Duty, or rather Prostrations to Becket, lately a Traitor, now a Saint. It is true he had undertaken to do something like this, upon his Pacification with the Pope: But what he then seemed to yield to through Necessity, he now seemed to perform, and even to exceed, thorough Choice. After he had walked three Miles, with the extreme Pain and Ignominy of bare Feet, to the Tomb of the Mock-Martyr, this mighty Monarch, this great Hero, the mightiest and greatest of his Time, yielded his Back, like a Criminal of the most sordid Degree, to be scourged by v fol. 177 the | Monks there, and patiently bore from each a certain Number of Lashes. He carried the unmanly abasement still lower, and even endangered his Royal Person, thus heated by Flagellation, by stretching it all Night upon the cold Pavement, in what they called Devotion. Next Day, to compleat the ridiculous Discipline, he attended

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 Bretanny 19 ⎡The King,⎤ | England,] he 22 ⎡there⎤ 26 ⎡perform, and even to⎤ 30 Class ⎡Degree⎤

310

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

the Farce of a pompous Procession round the Idolatrous Grave. After such a Proof of tamed Resentment, and reason quite subdued, it is not improbable, though asserted by Monks, that he believed a confident and miraculous Forgery of theirs, ‘that the late Victory over the Scots was procured by the Suite and Credit of the new Idol, St. Thomas’. After this short Suspension of the King and the Man, Henry resuming his former Character, marched with Vigour against the Strongholds yet in the Possession of his Son’s Adherents: Most of them surrendered. Some compounded. The rest were quickly reduced. His next Call was into Normandy, where the French King, who so lately had | fled before him, without having staid to see him, deeming fol. 178r it safe to attack him on that side the Water, whilst he was engaged on this, had assembled on Army and besieged Roan. The Inhabitants made a brave Defence, and defeated all his Efforts, till Henry, who never wanted speed where his Subjects wanted Succour, arrived to relieve them. Lewis then frightened as usual, did as usual, and raising the Siege, ran from his dreaded Enemy, in utter Confusion, leaving all his Stores and Baggage behind him. Nor would all this have saved him, had he not submitted to a Treaty, which he readily signed, and intended to break: But his Fear of Henry, who, having conquered all Opposition, was the more powerful for having met with it, kept him humble and hopeless. His mishaps in War, his own Age and the Infancy of his Son, with the Superiority and Success of his Rival, disposed him in Earnest to Peace. Henry was equally pacific, and had strong Reason to be so. They therefore quickly agreed. The Sons of Henry, now bereft of their great Prompter, and the Protector of their Rebellion, were forced to submit to their Father. Even Richard, who was the most wilful and furious, was obliged to concur with his | Brothers, because he could fol. 178v not hope to undo his Father without their Assistance. They all submitted and promised future Duty and Obedience; and their Father frankly forgave them, as he did all the Conspirators without Exception.

2 sense ⎡Resentment⎤ 22 break];: bBut 26 ⎡in Earnest⎤

The Reign of Henry II

311

As a Pledge of Union between the two Kings, Alice, the Daughter of Lewis, was betrothed to Henry’s Son Richard, and being very young, committed into the Hands of Henry, till she was of age to marry.32 The Prisoners on both Sides were released, except the Scotch King, who, by the Art of Henry in wording the Treaty, remained one still. He regained his Freedom upon severe Conditions. He was obliged not only to restore whatever he had taken from England, but to do Homage to the Crown of England, for wearing the Crown of Scotland: Homage not only performed personally by that Prince to Henry before the whole English and Scotch Nobility, purposely assembled at York, but confirmed by the Oaths of the Scotch Nobility, fol. 179r under a very | terrible Penalty, ‘that if ever their King departed from this Engagement, they would renounce their King’. Neither did Henry trust to all these extraordinary Ties: Perhaps he thought them too extraordinary to be kept. He therefore had more effectual Pledges put into his Hands, no less than the strongest and most important Fortresses in that Kingdom, Edinburgh, Sterling, Berwick and Roxborough. Henry, now in high Credit every where and in full Tranquillity, applied himself to the Arts of Peace, and Acts of Popularity. Frequent Wars had introduced many Disorders; and the Encroachments of the Crown, many Complaints. He had seen how much it imported a Prince to have the Hearts of his Subjects, especially in Times of Trial and Distress. He knew how dearly the English loved their native Laws, rendered dear to them by their Name, as they were called the Laws of Edward the Confessor, and still more dear as they were so repugnant to the Norman Laws, framed purposely to swell the formidable Power of the Sovereignty, and therefore most pleasing to the Sovereign, but odious to the People. Many Efforts had, from Time to fol. 179v Time, been made by the Lords to | oblige the Crown to receive the Laws of the Confessor, and many Promises had been given by the Crown to observe them; but as they were only given during the Dis-

5

10

15

20

25

30

32 In January 1169, Louis VII and Henry II signed the contract for the marriage between Alys and Richard. The eight-year-old Alys then came to England as Henry’s ward. In the years that followed there were widespread rumours not only that Alys had become his mistress, but that she had borne him a child as well. Two years after Henry’s death in 1189, Richard (the Lionheart) married Berengaria of Navarre, despite being still officially engaged to Alys.

312

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

tresses of the Crown, they were little regarded when the Distress was over; and all men passionatly longed to see those Favorite Institutions in Force. Henry was well aware of all this, and endeavoured to make the Public believe, that he meant to oblige the Public with what was so much desired by it. His Regulations were indeed plausible and pleasing, but as little executed as he intended they should be. One excellent Settlement he made, of infinite Use and Ease to the Subject ever since, by establishing the several Circuits for holding the Assizes in the several Counties, greatly to the Honour of the Founder, and an Instance of sound Policy; as if he who did so much Good to the Public, could mean nothing but public Good. He likewise took Advantage of so much Quiet to exterminate the Seeds of Disquiet, by demolishing the strong Holds in the Hands of Subjects, or keeping them in his Own. | Whilst the Affairs of Henry thus flourished, he married his fol. 180r Daughter Joanna to the King of Sicily, and sent her thither nobly attended; the Archbishop of Canterbury making one of her Train. He had consulted the States of the Kingdom about this Match; probably because the States were to raise her Portion. His Son John, the fourth and the youngest, now not much more than ten years of Age, was always highest in his Affection; and for him he had formed a grand Scheme, but not executed till some Years after, to make him King of Ireland. The Earl of Gloucester, whether from partiality to the Son, or to make court to the Father, appointed Prince John his Heir, and to bind the Appointment gave him a Promise of his Daughter in Marriage. Soon after this, Henry had an Interview with his old Acquaintance, and old Enemy, Lewis the King of France. A Sally of Grief and Bigotry brought that Prince into England, to invoke Becket, now St Thomas of Canterbury, for the Life of his Son and Heir Philip, then thought in imminent Danger from a violent Distemper. It alarmed his Father the more, as it seized him just when his Father was preparing to see him crowned. For, as he himself was now old and | infirm, fol. 180v and humbled by Disappointments, he was sollicitous thus to secure the Succession, according to the Practice of that Nation. Henry, who

14 ⎡the2⎤ 21 – 22 past ten ⎡more than ten years of Age,⎤ 33 Lewis ⎡his Father⎤

The Reign of Henry II

313

had no longer any Quarrel with him, met him at his Landing, accompanied him to the Idolatrous Tomb, and from the same Infirmity of Age, and Strength of Enthusiasm, deserting and affronting the Almighty, offered joint Prayers to the Ashes of Becket. Lewis was said to have been prompted by a Dream; nor could he have alledged a wiser Reason.33 Whatever little Service he might do his Son by this ridiculous Pilgrimage, the Monks of Canterbury gained voluptuously by it. Besides a Cup of massy Gold, as an Offering to the Saint, he presented them with a Charter for a yearly Present of above an hundred Hogsheads of Wine, with an Exemption of all Duty for whatever Quantity else they wanted and mighty buy. Not long before, the Earl of Flanders had been to pay, like a fol. 181r Pilgrim, his Devotions in the same Place, probably | to crave the Saint’s Benediction upon his intended Journey to the Holy Land, whither he carried with him several English Lords smitten with the same false zeal or the same false Ambition. The like prevailing Intoxication engaged the Kings of England and France to undertake the like Expedition. It is certain that they had agreed to undertake it, and probably would, but for the Death of the latter in 1180, the Year after his devout Visit to Becket ’s Tomb. Neither the holy Journey so lately performed, nor the pious Expedition so soon intended, could save himself from the Grave, though he hoped that one of them would his Son, and perhaps believed that it had. That same Son Philip, for whose Sake it was made, succeeded him. The French Historians call him Philip the August. Henry and He soon after entered into a Treaty of Peace and Friendship. During this Interval of Peace, Henry attended assiduously to the Administration of Justice, and held several Assemblies of the States, where many important Regulations were made, particularly in that at Northampton, called the Assizes of Northampton; many forfeited Barons were restored, and all the Constitutions of Clarendon con-

5

10

15

20

25

30

5 ⎡have2⎤ 12 they ⎡else they wanted and⎤ 33

King Louis’s pilgrimage to Becket’s tomb took place in 1179. The event was regarded as being crucial for the survival of his son Philip Augustus, and thus for the Capetian dynasty as a whole.

314

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 5

firmed, except the best, such as had occasioned | the Dispute with fol. 181v Becket.34 A Prince so able in War and Peace, and who maintained both with such Firmness and Spirit, could not fail of high Respect from neighbouring Princes. There is a remarkable Instance of it in the joint Embassy sent to him from two Princes at great Variance upon a very interesting Subject, Districts of Land and Strongholds, which were held, or claimed, by both, with equal Obstinacy. What makes it the more to his Honour, is that Sancho, King of Navarre should agree to the Decision of Henry, in a Dispute with Alphonso King of Castile, who was married to the Princess Eleanor Daughter of Henry. Henry, upon this nice Occasion, did a Thing which none but a wise Prince could have done, and no silly conceited Prince would have done. He convened and consulted the States of the Kingdom, and had the whole discussed by them. He then gave a Determination so sound and equitable, that the contending Kings submitted to it, and he reaped great Credit and Praise by it. | The greatest Characters are mixt: Henry with great Abilities had fol. 182r strong Passions, and therefore great Weaknesses; and the Faults of able Men are generally greater than weak Men can commit. Henry was abandoned to the Love of Women, nor could the Experience of fifty Years reclaim him, even from the dangerous Pursuit of the most unjust and offensive Gallantry. He was in love with Alice of France, though she was betrothed to his Son Richard, and, to heighten his Guilt and Misfortune, he was said not to have loved in Vain. This was enough to inflame the tempestuous Richard, who, rather wanting to quarrel with his Father, than fond of such a Bride, pressed for Consummation, and was seconded by the Importunity, and even by the Threats of a Legate from the Pope, sent over chiefly for that Purpose. The young King, his eldest Son, continued impatient to have only the Title of a Sovereign without the Authority. Geofry Duke of

25 ⎡he⎤ 30 ⎡only⎤ 34

The Assize of Northampton was a set of ordinances issued in 1176 for six committees comprising three judges each. They defined certain rights of the heir, the lord (or lords), and the widow of a deceased free tenant. The justices were also instructed to hear pleas of novel disseisin (a legal action to recover lands, brought by someone who had recently been dispossessed) arising since May 1175.

The Reign of Henry II

315

Bretain, now a Man, saw himself with Disdain still under the Guardianship of his Father. John was without even any mock Settlement, and, though the Favourite Son; not more content, than the rest. The Queen was still a Prisoner; her Sons were all earnest Suitors for her fol. 182v Release, | and all provoked to see their suit disregarded. She had incensed them against their Father, and their Father slighted their Petitions for Her. This was a Source of Family-discontents threatning to the Public and allarming to Henry. He judged it the best expedient for his own Security, to set his Children at Variance. He prompted the eldest to demand Homage of his Brothers, as he was their King. The eldest readily demanded it, and they either refused it, or declined it. Richard said, that Guienne was not a Fief held of England. Geofry owned Bretany a Fief of Normandy; but he could not do Homage for it to the young King, ’till the old King had resigned it; a Resignation, which the old King was too able to make to such a Son. Cunning, in order to be successful, must be concealed: It is lost, when it is discovered. The King’s Stratagem to disunite his Sons, served to unite them. They now perceived his Drift, and continued fol. 183r to deceive him by Dissimulation, as he | thought he did them. They paid him high Court, and appeared to be at mortal Variance, whilst they were closely combined to dethrone him. The young King, when he concluded Things ripe at home, went into France to excite a general Revolt in the English Provinces there. In the midst of his Career, Death defeated his Design: He was taken with a Fever, which, as it was at first slight, only obstructed his measures, without changing his Mind. He grew penitent when the Disease grew dangerous: He then expressed copious and keen Remorse, bitterly bewailed his unnatural Iniquity, professed warm tenderness and duty towards his Father, felt sore compunction for every Instance of his Disobedience and Disloyalty, and passionately desired to receive pardon from his Father at his Father’s Feet. He lived yet several Days; and his Father, informed of his Penitence, as a Token of Reconciliation, sent him a Ring: A pleasing Present, which redoubled his Agonies, and produced a Flood of Tears. To demonstrate his humility and sense of Guilt, when his End approached, he caused himself to be clad in sackcloth, 3 not] the 14 Bretain| y | 17 concealed];: and ⎡It⎤ 27 He1] only 32 ⎡yet⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

316

5

10

15

20

25

30

and laid upon a heap of Ashes, with a Rope tied about his Neck; and under such Signs of self condemnation, | resigned his Breath.35 fol. 183v The King behaved decently upon this Tryal. He had lost a hopeful, but rebellious Son, first spoiled by paternal Fondness and the illjudged Present of a Crown, then provoked by paternal Jealousey and the Shadow of Kingship. The youthful Prince, full of Courage and Ambition, thinking himself equal to the exercise of Sovereignty (as who within View of it, does not?) rather than not reign, would put an End to the Reign of his Father. He perceived not his crime, ’till he could not accomplish it, and then there was small Merit in his Sorrow for it. As Nature taught Henry to grieve for such a Son, Policy instructed him to moderate his Grief. The Loss of the eldest Son disappointed the rest, but did not reform them. Death had not yet frightened them with his dreadful Dart; nor, under the blind Influence of Ambition, could they see any Guilt in gratifying so pleasing a Passion. They however were forced to suspend their Efforts for a Time; the | Kingdom seemed in Re- fol. 184r pose, and the King at Leisure. In this State of Peace he had a pressing Sollicitation from the Pope, sent by no less a Person than the Patriarch of Jerusalem, to engage him in the foolishest of all Wars, in behalf of the Holy Land, which had already cost a Series of Disgraces and Misfortunes, with Myriads of Lives, to no Purpose, or the worst of all Purposes, the Advancement of the Pope’s Power. The Patriarch was a vehement Advocate, where he was so nearly interested, and enforced his Zeal with notable Art: He besought Henry in the Name of all the Christians there, to accept the Kingdom of Jerusalem; and, as a sort of Investiture, presented him with the Keys of the Tower of David and of the Holy Sepulchre. The good Prelate strove to persuade him of his Right by Inheritance to that Crown, from his Grand Father, Fulk of Anjou; an Argument founded upon a Falshood; for Fulk held it by Right of

11 Nature] therefore 35

Chapter 5

Henry the Young King died in the summer of 1183.

The Reign of Henry II

317

his second Wife, and Geofry, the Father of Henry, was born of his first.36 Henry referred the Patriarch to an Assembly of the Lords. Before Them the Prelate poured forth a Flood of Oratory and Tears, fol. 184v upon | the Calamities of the Christians in the East, where they had just as much Right to rule as the Mahometans had to rule in England. As his last Effort, he presented the Pope’s Letter, directed, in fervent Strains, to all Christian Princes. The Barons answered, that they would not venture the King’s Person, but consented to furnish a Sum of Money. This the Patriarch carried with him. Many of all Ranks, some of very great Rank, Earls, Barons, Bishops and Archbishops, with numbers of Gentlemen, and whole Crowds of the Commonalty, devoutly and stupidly followed him; for, the King, though he did not go, restrained none from going. The Pope pretended to be very angry at his refusing to be as mad and obedient as the Rest, on purpose to have a Pretence to make him pay for his Refusal. He had soon an Opportunity: The King continued intent upon creating his Son John, King of Ireland; and his Holiness had for his Consent a Tax from every House in that Kingdom. fol. 185r Upon this Gratification, he sent the young Prince | his Blessing in a Crown of Feathers. John was then sent thither, and dutifully received; but, being young himself, and counselled by such as were like himself, he governed so weakly and licentiously, that his Father was obliged to recall him: It was the easier done, because he was not yet crowned; a Solemnity omitted by Henry, lest his now eldest Son Richard, so restless and aspiring, might demand the like Solemnity and the English Crown. The turbulent Spirit of Richard could not brook Repose: It was the Child of Restraint, and he quickly abandoned it.37 His first Task

5

10

15

20

25

3 Lords],. and bBefore 6 ⎡to rule2⎤ 24 him];: iIt 36

Henry II’s father, Geoffrey (1113–51), was the elder son of Fulk V of Anjou and Ermengarde (Eremburga) of Maine (d. 1126). Fulk only married Melisende of Jerusalem and became king of Jerusalem in 1129. 37 In 1184, Geoffrey of Brittany and John of Ireland joined forces, with their father’s leave, against Richard, now the heir-apparent, and invaded Aquitaine (Guienne), but Richard managed to expel them. The brothers would never again face each other on the field of combat. Geoffrey died two years later.

318

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

was to confirm his Authority in Guienne, where he had before begun to rule as an absolute Sovereign, unaccountable to his Father, agreeably to the Wishes of the Natives, who liked a Sovereignty independent upon England. He then went into Poictou, whence he invaded Bretany upon some disgust received from the Inhabitants. His Brother Geofry, at the head of some Troops of Bretons, levied in haste, though much inferior in Number, boldly encountered him, but was defeated. The Defeat however brought small Advantage to Richard. His Father, always vigilant, and always | joining infinite fol. 185v Activity to infinite Sagacity, was well apprized of all his Designs and Pursuits, and already in Normandy at the head of a Force sufficient to awe Richard, and to crush him, had there been Occasion. Conscious of these Advantages he sent to Richard, already from Dread of his Father retired into Poictou, to order him, ‘under the Penalty of his final Displeasure, to forbear intruding for the future into the Affairs of Guienne, where he could have no Pretensions ’till after the Death of his Mother; and, upon his ready Submission, the King would allow him the Administration of Poictou; otherwise would not only force him to obedience, but disinherit him of the Crown of England ’. Richard thought fit to comply with his Father, because he was not so strong as his Father. Fear of being deprived of the Succession alarmed him still more; lest his Father might do what William the Conqueror had done, and leave the Kingdom to a | younger Son. fol. 186r Geofry died soon after of a Fever at Paris, an Event which in some Measure renewed the Assurance of Richard. Yet he still kept fair with his Father, and joined with him against the French King; who dreading the great Power of Henry, and seeing it raised so high by the Possession of so many noble Provinces in France, thought he had an Opportunity, from the Animosity between the Father and Son, to reduce the English Dominions there. He who means to quarrel will ever want Pretences: When Philip had got an Army ready to act, he had a Cause ready to assign. For some Territories he demanded Homage of Richard, the Possession of others from Henry. Neither of them had Forces ready, and he trusted that he should surprize both: A rash Hope where Henry was concerned, a Prince never to be sur-

5 Bretagne⎡ny⎤

The Reign of Henry II

319

prized: Nor did Richard ever want Spirit. They took such vigorous Measures, and so effectually baffled and distressed Philip, that he sued for a Truce, and had one granted him for two Years. Geofry left a Posthumous Son; and though his Grandfather could not obtain the compleat Guardianship, to the exclusion of the fol. 186v Mother, who, being the Heiress of Bretagne, claimed it to | herself, he gained a Point almost equivalent, that in all Measures of moment, his ‘Counsel and Consent were to be taken’; a Point that he carried from the Awe which the Estates there entertained of him; and his Credit with them was such, that they swore Fealty to his Grandson Arthur, as their Sovereign. It seems he was apprehensive that the Widow would take a second Husband. During the Truce, Richard visited Philip at Paris; and there Philip overreached and perverted Richard, who having more heat than Penetration, fell into his Snares.38 That King knew what Richard might easily have guessed, that it was his interest to perpetuate Disgusts and Rancour between the Father and Son. He behaved therefore with so much feigned affection to Richard, as entirely gained the unfeigned Affections of Richard; and as real Love is always open, feigned Love always upon its Guard, Richard had no Reserves to so kind a Friend; but explained all his Grievances to him, and plentir fol. 187 fully railed | at his Father. Philip affected infinite Concern and Sympathy, and great Eagerness to assist him, to ease him of all Complains, and to put him for ever out of the Power of a cruel and unjust Father, ‘You see, says he, the Difference which he makes between his Children, and his notorious Partiality: He crowned his Son Henry whilst he was a Youth: You are a Man, yet he denies you the like distinction; a Distinction which he can refuse you for but one Reason, as perhaps he intends it for his Favorite Son John’. This deceitful Kindness inflamed the Discontents of Richard, and roused all his Indignation: And being such a Dupe to a false Friend, as to stay with him, even when the Truce was near expiring, without regarding the repeated Calls of the King his Father, ’tis probable he

5

10

15

20

25

30

4 Posthum⎡o⎤us 8 ⎡that⎤ 19 open,] and 26 Partiality:] to them 38

Philip II was the son of Eleanor’s ex-husband Louis VII and the half-brother of Alys, the Countess of the Vexin, who was still betrothed to Richard the Lionheart.

320

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 5

would have become his Property and Ally in a War against his Father. He was indeed so far gained and bewitched, that he no longer uttered his Complaints in Secret; he proclaimed them aloud, railed publickly at his Father, for not permitting him to consummate his Marriage; yet expressed great fear, lest, if he called him home to consummate, he would not only deceive him, but even imprison him; and | alledged that he was warned of his Danger by his Friend at fol. 187v home. What he did at Chinon, was conformable to the rest of his Behaviour to his Father. He entered it deceitfully; as if he were returning home, and then violently seized his Father’s Treasure there. Henry, who wanted neither Penetration nor Intelligence, easily apprehended the Cause of his Son’s long Stay, passionate Stile, and desperate Conduct; and dispatched a trusty Person to convince him ‘of his Folly, what Mischief he was doing himself, what Service to the French King, and how dangerous and detrimental, his Credulity and Residence there, must prove to his Credit, Country and Family’. Richard yielding to the last and best Impressions, suddenly left the French King and hasted back to his Father. Whilst both Kings were upon the Point of renewing the War, an alarm from the East made them Pause. The Sultan Saladin had taken Jerusalem, and held in Captivity Guy de Lusignan, the | Christian fol. 188r King, who proved the last that reigned there. Both Kings were struck with such a signal Loss and Dishonour to Christendom; and suddenly changing their Passions, and even disregarding the Interests of their Kingdoms, agreed first upon a Conference, next upon another Truce, then, with all the mad Zeal of Enthusiasts, to risk their own Martyrdom, and sacrifice the Lives and Wealth of their Subjects in pursuit of wild Adventures in the East, undeterred, unwarned by the deadly Fate of so many Christians baned, famished and butchered there. The Earl of Flanders, smitten with the same Spirit joined in the Journey, and chose a grey Cross, as Henry did a white, and Philip a red. Prince Richard too was to be another Adventurer, perhaps the

2 ⎡he⎤ 10 Treasurye 15 ⎡his⎤

The Reign of Henry II

321

fittest of all, since he had infinite Bravery and little prudence or Caution; as the Nation proved afterwards at immense Cost.39 This sanctified Ramble had its usual Effects upon their several Countries, which were sorely oppressed and exhausted to set it on Foot. Henry employed a Band of Tax-Masters all over his Kingdom, particularly in the Cities and great Towns, to mark all the rich Men, v fol. 188 and by extorting large Sums from them | under the Title of Presents (for by that Name it was called; as if they were to be mocked as well as robbed) to reduce them to a proper Level with the Poor. They who refused to make this mock Present, were treated like those who long afterwards refused the arbitrary Loans of Charles the first, imprisoned till they paid the last Farthing. The Jews were barbarously fleeced, and those poor Wanderers and Refugees, drained of almost as much as the whole Kingdom. As if the Country of Judaea, the Land promised and given by God to the Jews, once possessed by them, still reckoned their Inheritance, were to be recovered at their Expence, not to them, but to Strangers and Foreigners. To gather and force these strange extorted Presents, had chiefly called over King Henry, and was his present unkingly Employment in England. Prince Richard was gone to Poitou, in a good Measure, upon the same unprincely Errand. Whilst he was there, burdening the People fol. 189r with | Impositions for the wild Holy-War, there happened an Accident, which rendered all the Zeal and Preparations of so many Princes abortive, and renewed the Rent between the two Kings. Richard had confined an Officer belonging to the Earl of Tholouse for some Misdemeanour committed in the Territories of Poitou. The Earl in return, finding two of Richard ’s Subjects in his Dominions, imprisoned them. These mutual Insults begot mutual Hostilities. Richard entered the Earl’s Country with a great Force, even claimed a Right to the Earldom, as belonging to the Heir of Poitou, and took

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 as ⎡since⎤ | ⎡prudence or⎤ 16 them,] and 21 Errand];. and wWhilst 39

In January 1188 Henry II and Phillip II met at Gisors, on the border between France and Normandy. Also present was Philip of Alsace, the count of Flanders. The two rivals agreed to cease hostilities and swore to ‘take the cross’. They also agreed to establish different symbols for the different corps. Crosses, however, were not used until the third Crusade (1189–92), also known as the Crusade of Kings, because three kings responded to Pope Gregory VIII’s call (Richard I of England, Philip II of France, and Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa).

322

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

several Towns. The Earl unequal in Force, besought Aid of the King of France. That King, whatever he thought, maliciously confirmed the Earl in his Opinion, ‘that Henry had prompted Richard to attack him’; and, as if he meant a Diversion to Richard in Favour of the Earl, invaded the Territories of Henry and seized Places. Thus the Passions of the two Kings reverted to their old Objects, and were keenly pointed at one another. The War between them proceeded with Fury, and Saladin was left to enjoy his Victory and his new Kingdom. Henry at first had his usual Success; | so much, that the French fol. 189v King dreading the Issue sought a Truce, and was refused: A Refusal which was a fresh Pique to Richard: since during a Truce he would have held what he had conquered of the Earldom of Tholouse; and if a Peace were made, as Henry intended before he laid down his Arms, Richard must probably abandon his Conquests. That Prince, still fostering his former Disgusts against his Father, with his silly Credulity in Philip, suddenly deserted his Father, in the Heat of the War, and threw himself into the Arms and Misguidance of Philip, who probably procured this Desertion, and now improved it to his own Purposes. Richard still feared what his late and new Tutor told him, that Alice his betrothed Wife, was intended for his Brother John, and with her the Succession to the Crown. Philip even asserted, that he had been courted by Henry for his Consent to give her to John, upon Conditions more to her Advantage than she had with Richard. It appeared afterwards that the most material of all his Complaints, about the | Succession, was a Fiction, framed only for Excuse and fol. 190r Clamour; as will soon be seen. The Grievance about the Lady was too real: Henry had sworn, upon his last Truce with Philip, to see her Marriage with Richard consummated; an Oath which he never performed, nor meant to perform, and perhaps could not perform, without Guilt as great as his Perjury. Such is the Danger and Wickedness in incuring any Guilt, which, generally necessarily implies more, sometimes worse to follow: Adultery leads to murder; Incest to Parricide.

16 his3] Friendship and 29 real];: and 33 generally], often ⎡or⎤ 34 follow:] As | Adult⎡e⎤ry

The Reign of Henry II

323

The Desertion of Richard was Fatal to Henry: With him he drew so many French Provinces as disabled his Father to cope with the French King. He therefore tried to gain Peace, had a Conference with Philip, and obtained a short Truce, but the Conditions offered by Philip for a Peace, were intolerable, particularly the Crowning of the unnatural and turbulent Richard during his Father’s Life. He had too severely suffered for that dangerous Favour to his former Son, ever to repeat it. Neither could he surrender his dearly beloved Alice; which was another sore Condition demanded. v fol. 190 His Affairs still proceeding unprosperously, | he had another Interview with Philip, who still insisted upon the same hard Terms, and added a new one, equally imperious and mortifying to Henry, that, ‘as after the Peace, they were both to proceed to the Holy Land, he should carry with him thither his Son John; that he might not attempt the Throne in the Absence of Richard ’. Henry’s great heart could not brook to be controulled by his Enemy, in Domestic Concerns; and he had again recourse to Arms, with his ordinary Vigour but not with his ordinary Success. His former Resources failed. Richard did Homage to Philip for all the English Provinces in France, that King charging Henry with being a Rebel, who being his Vassal had forfeited them, by making War upon his Sovereign. And now almost all his Subjects in France adhere to Richard. His Court at Saumur, even during Christmas, was so thin, that he saw but three or four Men of Condition about him; and fol. 191r being unable to defend the City of Mans in a Siege, he was | forced to set it on Fire. In the Field he had hardly Troops enow to be called an Army, and still fewer Followers. His constant Losses and Defeats, with the Defection of his Subjects, making their Court with emulation to the Rising Sun, forced him upon all Expedients for Peace, by utterly disabling him from continuing the War. In this Extremity he had recourse to the worst Shift, and perhaps the last he would have chosen, had he had any other left; I mean the Interposition of the Pope; who, ever eagerly catching at all Advantages and every Conjuncture for shewing his Authority and increasing his Importance, dispatched Legates into France, menacing Philip with Excommunication, if he any longer obstructed Henry from ful5 intollerable | ⎡of⎤ 14 ⎡not⎤ 17 ⎡he⎤ 27 Defects ⎤ Defeats⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

324

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

filling his Vow, by an Expedition into the Holy Land. Philip treated the Pope’s Menaces, and the Pope himself, as became a Monarch, and utterly disowned his Right to interpose at all in the Affairs of the Monarchy, especially to hinder him from correcting an armed Rebel. Besides defying the Pope, he insulted the Legates, as ‘purchased into Henry’s Interest by Henry’s Coin’. Richard was more furious, and drawing his Sword, was by force restrained | from concisely cancel- fol. 191v ling the Commission of the Legates, by cutting off their Heads. Henry was now in the Power of his Enemy, and his Son Richard enabled his Enemy to dictate to him the Terms of Peace, Terms extremely mortifying to the meanest Genius, terribly shocking to the great Spirit of Henry. One was, that he was to surrender the fair Alice to a Guardian appointed by Richard, and she was to marry him at his Return from Jerusalem: Another, that all the Subjects of Henry, English and French, were to swear Allegiance to Richard. Another, that Henry should pay Philip a great Sum for the Damages of the War: Another that all the Barons of England should swear to aid the King of France against Henry, if the latter broke any Article of the Treaty, and that all the Accomplices of Richard should be pardoned. Lastly that two of the Principal Cities belonging to Henry in France, should continue in the Hands of the King of France, ’till Henry had executed all these Articles. They were then all three to | meet in France, to pro- fol. 192r ceed to Palestine, and rescue it from its native and lawful Possessors, and present it to such as had no Right to it. Thus he saw himself abased, and, from the ablest, the bravest, and most powerful Monarch in Europe, stripped as it were of Sovereignty, by a King whom he had always beaten, ’till his own Son betrayed him, and instead of meeting the just Doom of a Parricide, for rebelling against him, and for sacrificing both his Father and himself to a common Enemy, meanly accepted his own hereditary Sovereignty from that Enemy; a Sovereignty which his prudent and magnanimous Father would have secured to him intire, and left him in full splendour and Independency. He shall live to repent all this, but his Father shall not live to see his Repentance. A Situation more distressful could not be devised than that of Henry, or more pungent Disgrace and Anguish of Mind to a Spirit

5 into] the 19 ⎡that⎤ | pardoned] too: | . | 26 Europe,] that 30 accepted] of

The Reign of Henry II

325

like his, quick, valiant and aspiring. In power and fortune he had no equal for a Course of Years; and, for Royal Endowments, none to the last: The first Hero and Conqueror of his Time, now the Sport of v fol. 192 Fortune, receiving | Laws from a weaker Genius, and furnishing the Triumph of a vanquished Rival, and of a hot headed, traiterous Son: His former State prosperous and flourishing; his present sunk and disgraceful; one remembered with Compunction, the other felt with Pain, both, with Shame; yet all not so dreadful and afflicting as what followed, a Discovery that his beloved Son John was as black and unnatural a Traitor, as his Son and Enemy Richard, and even engaged in the Conspiracy with the abandoned Richard to dethrone so tender a Father; a plain Proof that the hottest Men can Dissemble, and that Richard ’s Fear of his Brother, as a Competitor for the Throne, was (at least for some Time past) Imposition and Grimace. This Discovery threw Henry into furious Agonies. He cast away all Temper and Decency, abandoned himself to Rage and Execrations; cursed his Sons, cursed his Existence and his Birth, and refused to be pacified, or to retract his bitter Words. A Heart thus r fol. 193 racked, thus torne and convulsed, could | not continue long whole: It soon after burst at Chinon: In other Words, he died there on the 6th of July 1189 in the 57th Year of his Age, and the 35 of his Reign. By his Death he escaped a Mortification as sensible as any of the Rest, the Disgrace of accompanying Philip to the East, who would probably have continued, especially by the mad Assistance of Richard, to have plaid the Master over a Prince every way his equal; in War and Flame, infinitely his superior. According to his own Desire, and the Superstition of the Times, often blinding the brightest Understanding, he died in the Church, before the Altar, as if any Earth, or Stone, or any Form, or Habit, could alter the State of the immortal Soul, or influence in an Instant the Allwise God to everlasting Wrath, or everlasting Mercy! The greatest Princes have been deserted by their Servants, when dead. The Domesticks of Henry not only forsook him, but even stripped him, and left him naked in the Church. His Children were more cruel, and would have bereft him of his Crown, his Dignity and Honour; Enjoyments dearer than Life; perhaps his Life too 25 equal;] and,

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

326

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 5

would have followed. Does raging | Ambition know any Bounds? Or fol. 193v is unnatural Treason checked by natural Tenderness? A very affecting Spectacle was observed at the Funeral, surprizing to all, but of much horrour to Richard, who approaching his Father’s Coarse, which was carried royally dressed and open faced, had the Confusion to see a Torrent of Blood gush from his Mouth and Nostrils: a Sight that seemed to upbraid him with all his Guilt, and softning his savage Heart, threw him into Contrition and Agonies, and produced a Flood of Tears, with loud Condemnation of himself as the Author of his Father’s Death. If this was a Judgment, it was the most pertinent and expressive of all the silent Sort, if there be any such at all; a Doctrine which cannot well be maintained without affronting the Almighty; as if he could not, or would not, give more explicite Warning, where the Good of the World, and the Souls of Men are so nearly concerned. Henry, with many Infirmities | incident to most Men, had Qual- fol. 194r ities and Talents superior to most Princes, universally brave and discerning, for the most part humane and generous; a Benefactor to the Distressed, to the Widow and the Orphan; mild in his Demands upon his People, in the midst of so many Demands upon himself from so many Wars and Conquests; furnishing Grain, in the Time of Dearth, to ten thousand Souls at once, for some Months together; above all little Niceties and State-Jealousy in behalf of Forrest Laws, the common Grievances in all weak and violent Reigns. Henry rarely punished the Breach of them with Severity; seldom above Imprisonment: He was a kind Patron to Traders and Navigation, and rigorous against the savage Custom of plundering Wrecks. Nor had his Subjects ever Cause to complain of heavy Impositions, but once for the Holy War, from a Sally of Enthusiasm, constantly too hard for common Sense and Humanity, or rather a constant Enemy to both. Impure Love was his great Weakness, and carried him into most unwarrantable Excesses, particularly with the Lady betrothed to his Son, and it had (as all wickedness first | or last has) most Calamitous fol. 194v and afflicting Consequences. Surely he was a great Genius, a great Warrior and Polititian; and what is better and sometimes a different Thing, he was a good King, who studied and procured the Prosperity

3 observer| ed | 12 ⎡at all⎤ 30 their ⎡a⎤ | ⎡to both⎤ 35 Politi⎡ti⎤an

The Reign of Henry II

327

of his Kingdom. He was the Parent, or the Creator of his sorest Foes: Becket had been for many Years his prime Confident, his favorite Minister, raised to high Power, enriched with many Favours; afterwards, for many Years, his bitterest Plague, his most shameful and implacable Enemy, or rather, Persecutor and Curse. Becket began the 5 Persecution, and his Sons carried it on, with equal Turbulence, Asperity, Perjury, and every impious Purpose, till he sunk under it.

1 ⎡the2⎤

Chapter 6

The Reign of Henry the Third fol. 195r This reign, the longest and hitherto the meanest in our Annals,

serves as much to blacken as to swell them. The first Part of it is the best, as he was too young to rule in his own Name, and then in the Hands of an excellent Guardian, the Earl of Pembroke, who settled 5 the State, Him in the Throne, and supported both, with Ability truly great, as it was exerted uprightly. He cleared the Kingdom of the French, and reconciled the Barons to the Young King, notwithstanding their Aversion to his Father King John, for his repeated Falshood and Tyranny, which had provoked them into that desperate Course 10 of calling over and subjecting themselves to Prince Lewis, Son and Heir to the French King. Into such Extremes is the violence and perfidiousness of a Prince capable of driving his Subjects, as to suffer any Ruin, and even to court it, rather than bear it from him who is fol. 195v bound to protect them. Many of the Barons he gained | by Gentle- 15 ness and Persuasion; the Rest he forced; and he beat the French into a Treaty, very seasonable, very honourable for England, procured by great Bravery, and conducted with great Prudence.1 4 ⎡the⎤ 16 ⎡he2⎤ 1

When John died in the course of the First Barons’ War, William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, and other supporters of the young Prince Henry, orchestrated his coronation as King Henry III (28 October 1216) and continued hostilities. Although he was initially successful, Louis suffered a series of defeats in 1217, which forced him to concede to negotiations. In the Treaty of Lambeth, signed on 20 September 1217, Louis renounced his claim to the crown. On 9 April 1219, William was struck down by a deadly illness, resigned from his office in a council at Reading,

330

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

The Use which he made of Victories obtained, of Peace established, and of the Power of the Crown restored, was agreeable to his benevolent Heart and wise Maxims, even to make the young King, upon his pompous Entry and joyful Reception into London, solemnly swear to observe the Laws and maintain all the Privileges of the Subject. A Regent less wise and honest, would have thought it, at least called it, his Duty, to have improved such an Opportunity for enslaving the People, would have flattered a young Prince with the falsest of all Charms, a View of absolute Power, the worst Compliment paid to any Prince, and always paid him by the worst of Men. The Earl of Pembroke sought the Security and Glory of the Crown from its natural Source, that of Tenderness and Justice to the People. As after a civil War there were many mutinous Spirits to be reclaimed, many Fears on one Side, many Discontents on the other, to be removed, he proceeded towards all with such a prudent Mixture of Gentleness and Authority as to pacify all: A hard Task, fit only for a wise Man, who is always just, and therefore of sufficient Credit to | check the over sanguine Hopes of his Friends, and to fol. 196r remove the Distrusts of his Enemies. His next Step, when he had settled public Tranquillity, was to remove public Grievances. In all the late Reigns, the Royal Oath, so often and so readily taken, had been generally taken on purpose to be broken, though never with impunity to the Breakers, who yet were too blind or too hardened to take warning, and still went on practising Perjury without Remorse, and still felt the Effects of it, (ill Success and public Vengeance) without amendment; were always bringing Misery upon themselves as often as they brought it upon their Subjects, always bearing, as well as inviting, the constant Curses that follow the Breach of Trust and Oaths, hatred, infamy, opposition and misery.

and died the following month. After his death, Hubert de Burgh (c. 1160–1243) became to all intents and purposes the regent of England, heading off the challenge of his rival, the Bishop of Winchester Peter des Roches (d. 1238). In 1227, Peter left the country to go on a crusade under the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II. However, he returned to England in 1231, brought about the fall of Hubert in 1232, and placed his nephew (or perhaps his son), Peter des Rivaux, in charge of the royal household. The rule of the two Peters soon led to a revolt by the barons (1233–34), and Henry was forced to dismiss them.

The Reign of Henry III

331

The Regent, who had seen so much of this, and scorned the base and unmanly Precedent, equally destructive to King and People, resolved to convince them, that the Royal Power was now truly paternal, as much above all Deceit, as all Deceit ought to be below Royal Power; that the Preservation of public Liberty and Right, was as much the Care, as it was the Duty and Interest of the Crown; and that the Oath of the King was no longer to be a Thing of Form, much less a Snare to the Kingdom. He sent positive Injunctions to fol. 196v the Sheriffs of the several Counties, to see the Charters of | the Public Liberties sacredly observed, and all such as dared to violate them, exemplarily punished. For the surer Execution of such excellent Policy, and Performance of the King’s Oath, he appointed Itinerant Justices all over England to restrain every Encroachment upon Right, all Deviation from Justice. Such a Blessing did the Administration of this great good Man prove to the King and Nation, and an equal Calamity his Loss, which soon followed. All Countries have need of such good Ministers; so have all Kings, especially one so young and so weak as Henry the third. Nor was his bad head his worst weakness. He delighted in the worst Measures, consequently in the worst Men. There succeeded to the Earl of Pembroke in the Regency Peter des Roches, a Frenchman, Bishop of Winchester: Hubert de Burgh was appointed Chief Justiciary of the Kingdom; both arbitrary Ministers, therefore very unfit to govern a Prince fond of being arbitrary. De Burgh, who had the greatest Ascendancy over him, soon gave Proof that not Law, but Will and Violence, was to be the Rule of his Administration: A Riot in the City furnished him with a Pretence for proceeding against the Rioters, nay against the City, by hanging, fol. 197r maiming and | mutilating the Citizens, without process of Trial, turning out the Magistrates of London, and exacting security from the City for their future good behaviour. Many of them had deserved such severe vengeance, had it been legally inflicted; as he himself certainly did, by inflicting it illegally. He will in Time reap the bitter fruits of his furious and unpopular sway, and be in his turn exposed to the scorn and fierce insults of these very Citizens. How blind are all bad men to their future Lot, even whilst they are earning and pur9 ⎡see⎤ 21 ⎡to⎤ 33 Time] (not a long Time)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

332

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

suing it! They trust to the constancy of Fortune, which is for ever changing, or to their own skill in mastering Fortune, which masters all things. What De Burgh had done was against the very letter of the Great Charter, which the King had sworne to observe, and according to which every man was to be tried by his Peers. Such a change in the administration had followed the change of Ministers! The Life and Property of the Subject, so sacred and so secured under the Earl of Pembroke, were now at the Will and mercy of De Burgh. The Parliament under this alarm, apply to the King, ‘to cause the Charter of their Liberties to be observed, according to his Oath’. An application | very disgustful to the Bishop-Regent, and other Minis- fol. 197v ters, who throve best by public abuses, got most when they left the People least, therefore thought it unreasonable that, for so small a Consideration as the felicity of all men, a few great men should be retrenched in their pomp and pleasures. They had but one argument, always urged by bad Ministers to weak Princes, too often with Success; ‘that the Charter was extorted from former Kings’: though no otherwise extorted than the Crown was extorted from the People; that is, They were engaged to obey the King as their Sovereign, He, to treat Them as Freemen. These were express Terms upon which all his Predecessors since the Conquest had been admitted to the Throne: Except upon these Terms William Rufus and Henry the first could never have excluded their eldest Brother Robert, nor could Richard the first and his Brother King John, have excluded Arthur of Bretany, the Son of their elder Brother Geofry. They had indeed all been crowned by the consent of the Barons, upon certain Limitations sworn to by themselves; and where the Obligation was mutual, so ought the Performance. As the violation of that Contract had always produced public Insurrections, in which the King as well as People always suffered, and as the restoring it to Force always restored public | tranquillity, alike beneficial to King and People, fol. 198r those Ministers who thus opposed the Parliament, were enemies to King and People. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury had the courage and honesty to oppose Them, and to give the King better advice, which at this Time

23 Throne],: eExcept 31 ⎡the⎤ | by ⎡to⎤ 33 were] manifest | to] both 36 him ⎡Them⎤

The Reign of Henry III

333

he took, and it was the last time that ever he took any such. He told the Parliament that he complied with their Petition; and the Parliament in return for his gracious assurance, granted him a Supply.2 De Burgh’s sway over the King wanted but one thing to make it compleat, the removal of the Bishop of Winchester, Regent, and his superiour. He therefore applies to Rome, (from whence a proper price could procure the recommendation of the worst Iniquity) for a Bull declaring the King of full age, and ordering all the strong Places to be surrendered to his Royal Disposal. But the Barons, who held them, slighted the Pope’s authority for that of the Law, which continued him a minor ’till one and twenty. He tried another Device, or rather Fraud, proper to carry his wicked Ends: He advised the King to demand the surrender of all the Castles; and, for an example to others, surrendered his own, the Tower of London and the Castle of Dover; a treacherous example, yet rashly followed by some of the v fol. 198 Barons; and then | presently the King restored him back his two Fortresses, the most important in the Kingdom: This was an unpardonable Insult upon the Lords, who had resigned theirs; a mean cheat worthy of a wicked Minister, but too mean for the meanest Prince. What Prince can be great, who descends to mean Things? This had a present and a proper effect: They conceived a distrust of the King; a passion which seldom comes single: Contempt, though bad enough, is not the worst that attends it. His great Favorite they abhorred: Yet he had the assurance to threaten such of Them as had not resigned, with Excommunication, then the common Tool of Tyranny and Fraud, the more terrible as it blasphemously bore the holy name of God. It terrified some into compliance: Others had more sense and spirit, and remained obnoxious to the rancour and machinations of the Favorite. The Parliament, notwithstanding these ill symptoms and discouragements, chearfully supported him in his measures, especially in his expedition to suppress some public disturbances far spread and sup-

5

10

15

20

25

30

4 wanted] [[...]] 15 treach⎡er⎤ous 31 ⎡in2⎤ 2 Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury from 1207 to his death in 1228, had been a key figure in the dispute between King John and Pope Innocent III, which ultimately led to the drawing up of the Magna Carta. In 1223 he again emerged as the leader and spokesman of the barons, who were demanding the full execution of the charter by King Henry.

334

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

ported by some very powerful Lords, who trusting to the King’s weakness in pardoning, or his folly in not punishing the like Criminals, had ventured upon the like Crimes. But the next | Parliament, fol. 199r before they would grant him an Aid against France, drew from him a fresh engagement for better maintaining the great Charters. Such engagements, which he never kept, cost him only his honour; and, as he freely submitted to this, the Parliament frankly gave him a supply, which the People, who hitherto trusted him, as chearfully paid. In return, he continued his disregard for them and their Charter. Yet the following Parliament complimented him with such a high proof of their confidence as to declare him of age a year before he was so. To this Parliament the Pope applied by his Tax-Gatherer the Legate, for a new standing Revenue, so much from every Cathedral, so much from every Monastry. Pontifical Avarice is never satiated: Holy men are the most earthly minded; they despise this World, as only a thorny road to an other, yet lay such eager Hold of it, as if they either sought not a better, or feared never to enjoy it. The Pontif, who never saw this Kingdom, and whose only merit in it was, by his Emissaries, by strange Cant and Spells, to delude and drain it, to extinguish sense and property, to banish peace, conscience and morality, had already for such services an infinite Revenue out of it under a thousand tricks and pretences, yet is still forging | new Claims. The Leg- fol. 199v ate’s Language is remarkable, and he acts the Deputy-Impostor with due hypocrisy, always best covered with an apparent simplicity and frankness. He owns ‘how long the Popes had lain under the scandal of doing nothing without Bribes: It was incumbent upon the Faithful (that is, all true Bubbles) to remove such scandal by giving him more than he had, and then he would take less than he did’. He talks of ‘the reasonableness of some acknowledgements for the Pope’s favours to his Sons’. One of the Favours meant, I suppose, was a fatherly Indulgence, gained by a round Sum, or some other Godless consideration for the benefit of the Holy Father, to break their most sacred Oaths, and defy the living God, to whom they had appealed for their sincerity in taking them. The Legate would not say that, even for this extraordinary Grant, the Pope would make no more Demands, or renounce his usual Cravings.

4 agains⎡t⎤ 14 satiated];: 19 ⎡by⎤

The Reign of Henry III

335

The Parliament lent a deaf Ear to his Proposal, and treated it and him with proper Contempt. He however made himself some amends: He plundered and oppressed the Clergy without any mercy or Bounds on pretence of his Visitation-Fees and Expences. The King daily shewed more Signs of a little spirit and great fol. 200r Pride, scarce capacity to | govern even by the safe Rule of Law, yet a Passion to govern desperately without and against Law. He was so variable and so weak, as never to concert a wise measure, nor steadily to pursue a bad; always rapacious, always poor; a Tyrant to his Subjects, a Slave to his Favorites; his great passion, to oppress his People; his great principle, that he might. He claimed all power, though he could use none; and he had only the name and Will of a Tyrant, whilst others exercised the Tyranny; So unfit was he to be declared of age even when he was. As there was an end of the Regency with that of the Minority, De Burgh found means to get rid of the Regent who had still some credit with the King. He therefore persuaded him, ‘that so long as the Bishop of Winchester continued about him, he would still be considered as a Minor; and it was for his reputation to appear, as well as to be, a Sovereign’. Any Reason which humours weak Minds, convinces them. The Bishop is removed, and Henry is now less a King even than he was before as De Burgh had now greater, indeed the only Power. His Reign which ever since the death of the first Regent, had been a course of falsification and oppression, grew still worse since he was out of his Minority, by several Acts of power and extorfol. 200v tion, | especially that of calling in all particular Charters, and exacting money for renewing them: An Act of public oppression, which had been committed once before in a former Reign; and that violent Act was now urged to justify one as Violent; as if iniquity could be cancelled or even lessened by an Aggravation and the less pardonable Guilt of repeating it. The same argument served for robbing the City of London of a great Sum of Money, because they had lent such a Sum to Prince Lewis of France, called over to deliver the Kingdom from the Oppressions of King John, Father to this very Henry now treading in the same steps. Nor was this barbarous exaction

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

11 wanted ⎡claimed⎤ 14 was] so 21 ⎡is now⎤ 22 ⎡before⎤ 24 | still worse | 35 exa⎡c⎤tion

336

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

restrained to London: Other Towns and Bodies corporate felt it with proportionable severity, and the same no-redress. These were however but small Essays of lawless power compared to what followed. The two Great Charters were solemnly cancelled and declared null: By which Act the King’s past perjury and fraud, and his future Tyranny, were as solemnly avowed: By this Act he lost all credit and the hearts of his People: By this Act and his consequent Measures, aiming at nominal and deceitful power, he forfeited all real power, and invited such a Torrent of disgrace and misery, as flowed with | continual Increase to the end of his Reign, fol. 201r which, as all such Reigns are, or should be, was as miserable, if possible, as it was bad. With this accession of power to De Burgh (for by it he had undone the poor King, as well as the poor People) there accrued an addition of honours, instead of a more proper reward for this his frantic and flagitious Counsel, so pernicious to all, and so threatening to himself: For he had now invested the King with a Claim to his head, and his estate, to that very Earldom of Kent which the King had now given him, and might when he pleased take from him: An Event which followed in a few Years. At present he is in high favour with the King for sacrificing the King’s reputation, and for endangering his Life and Crown; and this enemy to the Public is distinguished with public Honours. Henry’s conduct in the affairs of the Church resembled his civil Conduct, and was equally absurd, impotent and unjust, always in blind subserviency to the Pope, whose influence and meddling here were eternally found pestilent and disgraceful to King and People. He once attempted a wise measure, but had neither head nor heart to carry it through. As it was of infinite concern to Him, | who it was fol. 201v that filled the Seat of Canterbury, he quarrelled with the Monks of St Austin, for proceeding without his Licence to elect an Arch-Bishop, whom He disliked, and therefore refused to confirm and admit.3 But when the Arch-Bishop appealed to the Pope, Henry, who ought to

17 himself ],: as ⎡For⎤ 22 ⎤ [[...]] ⎤ 31 ⎡for⎤ 33 – 337,1 ⎡who ought to have disregarded the Appeal and punished the Appellant,⎤ 3

Walter d’Eynsham.

The Reign of Henry III

337

have disregarded the Appeal and punished the Appellant, meanly bribed the Pope with an incredible Offer of a Tenth of all the Moveables in England and Ireland, to make void the Election. The holy Father thus convinced, complied; but against all Precedent, and, without consulting the King, arbitrarily bestowed that important Dignity upon a creature of his own,4 in contempt of the Rights of Election, and of the King’s Prerogative, Reputation, and Interest. This daring encroachment upon the Kingdom and upon Kingship, Henry tamely bore, though impatient of all Controul from Justice and Laws. The shameless Pope, who had but half obliged, indeed highly abused and deluded the King, soon sent one of his holy Collectors to demand the whole effects of the King’s promise. The Parliament meets; the monstrous demand is made; the Members, with wonder, turn their Eyes upon the King; the King by his silence signifies his Consent. The Lords, more like men, shocked to see the People and their Tenants robbed of a Tenth of their Subfol. 202r stance, | propose a mitigation, and an expedient, ‘to grant the Pope a good Sum, though not so much’. But as ’twas evident that the King was in the confederacy with the Pope against his people, the Parliament cared not to enrage both. The like fear influenced the Clergy: So all submitted to the mighty plunder, which as it had been obtained against all Justice, was exacted without all mercy. The Crops in the field and fruits of the Earth, as they were yet growing could not be taken; but, as in the papal Casuistry they were judged to be Moveables, the poor Owners were forced to pay the Tenth of their value in money. What money the Monks and the Clergy were found unable to pay, the Bishops and Abbots were obliged to advance for them; recover it how they could: What Sums the Bishops and Abbots could not pay, were furnished them at a monstrous interest by Italian Usurers purposely brought over. Such were the tender Dealings of the spiritual Father with his Flock in England! Such was the fatherly protection of an English King over his Subjects, as to grind them himself, to help the Pope to

5

10

15

20

25

30

5 that] great and 6 in] [[...]] 10 obliged,] and 19 the1] assembly 4

Richard le Grant was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury by Pope Gregory IX on 19 January 1229.

338

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

grind them, and to brow beat and threaten all such as refused to bear such Grinding. He might have learnt better from the behaviour of one of his Barons, the worthy Earl of Chester; had | he had the same fol. 202v courage, or humanity, or good principles. That brave man refused to suffer his Tennents and Territories to undergo this papal Spoil.5 But Henry had low Policy as well as want of Spirit: He could not make the People his Slaves, without making himself and them Slaves to the Pope; and rather than not tyrannize, would be, in Fact a Vassal, at best a Deputy Tyrant. By this infamous condescention he miserably crushed his Subjects, and the Pope unmercifully crushed both. Many bad Princes have been good Soldiers, and could conduct a war well, though they governed a State ill. Henry was just such a soldier as a King. He had suffered great provocations and great Losses from France, where Philip Augustus had seized many of the Territories there belonging to England, during the Reign of King John. These Territories Prince Lewis, Son to Philip, had promised to restore to the English whenever he himself came to the Crown of France. Upon the death of Philip, Henry sent Embassadors to the Son, now Lewis the eighth, to claim the performance of his promise, which Lewis not only evaded, but soon after declaring all Henry’s Dominions in France to be forfeited by Henry’s not attending his Coronation, invaded | them in a hostile manner. As this had happened in the fol. 203r Minority of Henry, his Ministers, having their own Views to pursue at home, and little regarding things of smaller moment, their Master’s Honour and the interest of their Country abroad, made small efforts to recover either. Hence it became him the more, when he was of age, to have exerted all possible vigour to have retrieved the Glory of the Nation and his own, by falling upon the Enemies of both. Besides as the cause was just, so was the opportunity inviting. Lewis the eighth was dead, his Son and Successor was a Child; his Mother the Dowager, though a Foreigner, was left Regent; a designa-

4 man] absolutely and [[...]] 5 this] barbarous 6 low] and wicked 22 ⎡had⎤ 23 Ministers,] [[...]] 5

In 1229 Ranulf de Blondeville (1172–1232) successfully resisted the ecclesiastical tax collector.

The Reign of Henry III

339

tion which gave such disgust to the Nobility and occasioned such popular Discontents as ended in a Civil War. A little before the death of that King, Henry who was making preparations to attack him, was commanded by the Pope to forbear, for that the French King was employed in a papal Commission to massacre the poor pious Albigenses, the only genuine Christians then in the World, therefore not owning the Pope, nor observing the pagan Fooleries and Idolatry of Catholics.6 Such Sovereignty had fol. 203v this strange Phantom at Rome acquired | over the Sovereigns of the Earth, as by the force of a Nod, or a Name, to engage them to butcher their best Subjects, and to commence enmity or amity one with another! Did Paganism ever produce any thing so hideous, so incredible as this; anything so disgraceful to reason, so shocking to human nature, so tragical to the Creation? Whilst this suspension of war continued, Henry took all proper measures to disable himself to renew it, by violating the Laws and his Faith with his People, by exhausting them himself and helping the Pope to exhaust them. When that suspension was ended, he continued in these hopeful pursuits at home, instead of Fomenting the Troubles in France, or taking that extraordinary opportunity to recover his Territories and Credit there. Before he attempted it, the Queen Regent had humbled or gained over the mutinous Nobility, pacified all Tumults, quieted all the Male-Contents, and resettled the Kingdom in its former Union and Strength. And, as if he had studied to miscarry at home, by depriving himself at once of the hearts and purses of his Subjects, he demanded a Supply for the War whilst they were yet groaning under their late dreadful Oppression of the papal Tenths, an oppression of his own procuring, besides all fol. 204r his | own oppressions. Yet he was supplied, so supplied as to raise one

5

10

15

20

25

12 and ⎡so2⎤ 6

Louis VIII of France, who had been persuaded by Pope Honorius III to take up arms against the Albigenses (or Cathars), died in November 1226. He was succeeded by his twelve-yearold-son, Louis, who was crowned at Reims cathedral within a month, but his mother Blanche of Castile ruled France as regent until he came of age. The Cathars believed that everyone should have the possibility to read the Bible, duly translated into the local language. The Synod of Toulouse in 1229 expressly condemned such translations, and even forbade lay people to own a Bible.

340

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

of the noblest Armies ever seen in England, but rendered for the present utterly useless, for want of Ships to transport it. The King charged the neglect upon De Burgh, and would have directly run him through the Body, but for the generous interposition of the Earl of Chester. De Burgh soon after deluded the poor fickle King into a reconciliation and the same implicite trust. The King, now obliged to postpone his expedition till the Spring, employed himself the while as usually, in Acts of rapine upon his People, forced a Largess from the Clergy, a great Sum from the City; and from the Jews throughout England a Third of all that they had. In the Spring he landed in France, is received by the Earl of Bretany and presented with the possession of all his strong places. Instead of advancing against the French Forces, he leaves them at leisure to fortify themselves. Instead of assisting the French Male-Contents, now again in arms, encouraged by his coming, he neither went nor sent to assist them: Instead of marching into Normandy, where they expected him, were ready to join him, and pressed him to hasten to them, he marched away to Poictou, where he lost time and did little: Then, as if he meant to shew his friends | the Male-Contents, that he aban- fol. 204v doned them, and thus tempted or forced them to submit to the Queen, he came back to Bretany, where he ended his warlike expedition in profuse Banquets and Revelling: Most of his Nobles followed his Example; and the lower Ranks sold their horses and arms to purchase wine and pleasure. The Queen Regent who had now full time and encouragement, again to reduce her angry Subjects to peace and submission, and to attack Henry in her Turn, ordered her Army to march towards Bretany. This News roused the English Monarch, not to meet them, his Courage as well as money being all spent, but to run away upon the first News of their Approach, and hasten back to England. The poor Earl of Bretany, drawn by Henry into the War, must have been presently over-run, had not the Earls of Chester and Pembroke, left behind with some Troops, defended him. By this, and by their successful Incursions into the French Quarters, they shewed, what the English Army could have done under a manly head. The Earl of Bretany made his peace upon what Terms he could.

4 ⎡the Body,⎤ 6 ⎡the same⎤ 20 ⎡thus⎤ 26 his ⎡her1⎤

The Reign of Henry III

341

After this mock expedition, or rather prodigal Ramble, where so much money was lavished, so much infamy got, so much noble Force fol. 205r thrown | away; Henry applies to Parliament, which I wonder how he could have the face to ask or even to meet, for a Supply. It is yet more wonderful that the Parliament should grant it, as they did; indeed with infinite reluctance, only in pity of his miserable poverty. For, though extremely covetous, he was equally profuse, and thence always in want. Lewellyn Prince of Wales, encouraged by Henry’s wretched management and character, made bold Incursions into England; and Henry bore them ’till he hoped to fall upon that Prince by surprize, ‘but upon the first resistance, says Rapin, his warlike ardour abated, and he returned without effecting any thing’.7 Yet he has still the confidence to call a Parliament, still to demand more money, and even to alledge his debts from the late ridiculous expedition into France, where he had done nothing but wasted it, disgraced England and ruined the Allies and his own Cause. He had a proper answer from the Barons by the Earl of Chester, one of the Heroes and Patriots of that Time; ‘that they had already amply though vainly assisted him with their persons as well as their purses, and owed him no further aid’. His application to the Clergy was as fruitless. Both Clergy and laity had more and more cause to distrust fol. 205v and reproach | him, for favouring the open usurpations of the Pope upon both. His Holiness besides his repeated and barbarous exactions upon their substance, was daily not only engrossing all Presentations, and abolishing all the Rights of Patronage, but filling all vacancies with Italians, at least with foreigners. Under such shocking insults whence the emoluments and blessings of England were robbed from English-Men, near an hundred Men of condition combined to strip all these strange Ecclesiastics of all their english Spoil, which was their whole substance; and having seized it, gave it to the poor, a proper use for such dishonest Gains. This proceeding so popular as to meet with no opposition, nor to raise any Tumult, and so

5

10

15

20

25

30

9 The ⎡Lewellyn⎤ 17 ⎤ [[...]]⎤ 19 – 20 ⎡already amply though vainly⎤ 23 open] [[...]] and 32 ⎡such⎤ 7

Llywelyn the Great (c. 1172–1240). See Rapin-Thoyras, The History of England, vol. i, p. 395.

342

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

allarming to the Pope, as to draw a furious Letter from him, threatning the King with Excommunication, unless he instantly punished the Authors, yet was followed with very little vengeance: Certain public Officers were imprisoned; and one man concerned was sent over to the Pope. Further inquiry was dangerous, where the conspirators were known to be many and powerful, and where even the Bishops were suspected. There happened a little before this a Vacancy in the See of Canterbury and St Austin’s | Monks made election of an Arch-Bishop, fol. 206r but the Pope disliking the Choice declared it null, and ordered them to proceed to another: They had now chosen twice without success, because his Holiness objected to the men; to the first for a very substantial reason, because he was charged with loving his Country; a sure sign of an unworthy Churchman, unfriendly to papal Rapine and impiety. It was of no weight with the Pope, but rather an objection, that the King had licensed and confirmed their choice. He considered both the King and the Monks as his Slaves; and indeed the King was as much so as they. To the second it was objected, that he was old and simple; as if a qualification so frequently found in the Pope, were not sufficient for an Arch-Bishop; a qualification too, which, as it inferred the greater competency of Bigotry and Avarice, boded the more advantage to the Hierarchy, as the same was then formed. His Holiness doubtless had another Reason not fit to be owned: For, this Vicegerent of the God of truth, and mercy, and peace, supported his double Dominion by falshood, and cruelty, and civil Discord. The humble Monks, to please their papal Sovereign, proceed to chuse a third Arch-Bishop; but the Pope again makes void the Election: Having thus stripped them of the privilege of electing, and assumed it intirely to himself, he | named an Arch- fol. 206v Bishop to Them, and permitted them the Mockery of voting for him.8 But this violence to the Monks was but a small essay of his power and modesty. He, who was master of both Worlds, could of

4 ⎡was⎤ 19 ⎡so frequently found⎤ 24 owned],: fFor 25 peace,] [[...]] 28 priviledge 8

In 1233 Pope Gregory IX appointed Edmund Rich to the archbishopric of Canterbury. In the previous two years, the monks of Canterbury had made three selections (Ralph Neville, John of Sittingbourne, and John Blund), none of whom had been confirmed by the Pope.

The Reign of Henry III

343

course direct and dispose of every thing in this, Crowns as well as Church Preferments. It may indeed seem amazing that a frail human creature with the name of Pope, should by the witchcraft of a word, claim, and plague, and controul the whole Earth and all the powers in it; that He who, by the account and confession of the papal Histories, was sometimes a Boy, often a Debauchee, sometimes Atheist, frequently a Dotard, commonly a Usurer, always an Oppressor, generally ignorant, irreligious, an enemy to conscience, the source and standard of Religion; that He who had gained this fairy Sovereignty by mobbing and fighting, and slaughter, or by dark frauds and intrigues, by the force of Bribes, by the arts and caresses of Harlots and Sodomites; that he who probably sprang from the vilest vulgar, the Offspring of a Strumpet, the Descendent of a lewd Priest, or his Pathic; should be suffered in a Christian Country, or any Country, to usurp the Seat of Christ; to assume the Attributes of the Almighty; to cheat and oppress the Creation; to make and unmake Monarchs, and even to fol. 207r tread upon their Necks; to | propagate Piety by barbarity, Religion by fraud; impoverish Nations by Blessing them; throw them into desolation by cursing them; flatter and exalt the worst men, torture and kill the best; vouch and impose the most incredible Lies for holy and true; sanctify or cancel the most hideous Crimes; turn Good into Evil, Evil into Good; and the whole Race of men into Beasts of burden, of sale or of slaughter. All this and every part of it, is indeed matter of mighty amazement; which yet ceases upon one obvious reflection, that the whole naturally follows from allowing and establishing two short propositions; first that, ‘we are to submit our Reason to faith; next, that our faith is to be directed by others’, be he one, or more, under any denomination whatsoever. These Principles constitute Popery; These Principles have raised the Papacy; These Principles make Papists. They dispose men to trust without trial; to acquiescence without enquiry; to obey where there is no Precept; to give where there is no claim; to rage unprovoked; to seek vengeance without having suffered wrong; to love where they should hate; to hate where they ought to love; to surrender their fac3 humane 8 ⎡generally⎤ 14 [[...]] ⎡lewd⎤ 26 short ⎡obvious⎤ 27 ⎡short⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

344

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

ulties, to belie their Senses and Feeling; to believe impossibilities, to maintain Contradictions; to shut their Eyes for fear of Seeing, and to think they see | clearest when their Eyes are shut; to take ignorance fol. 207v for illumination, and their improvements in darkness for Instruction; to kill, out of Charity; to act like real Dæmons in order to shew themselves true Saints. In short, under this influence, in consequence of these Principles, they can swallow for truth, the most shocking blasphemies; can believe that the weakest and most vicious Priest, who cannot create a Gnat, can make, and eat, and multiply the Almighty and Invisible Creator of Heaven and Earth. For, they are no longer rational, nor religious Creatures but sensitive Machines in the hands of their Guide who, with heavenly Words and Pretences, always easily found, may draw them into any inconceivable Creeds, as well as into all worldly and wicked designs, at least draw from them means and power sufficient to carry such designs in spite of them. To any unbiassed man, who loves mankind and consequently Truth and Liberty to any Man who reads History, that of this or any other Country, the spirit and operations of Popery, cannot but appear frightful and destructive. We have seen in the former Reign, we have seen in this, and shall continue to see in the rest of his, and in all the future popish Reigns, the antichristian conduct of the Pope here; see what Cheat he continually promoted, what violence and rapine, | what confusion, distress and desolation, all profanely in the fol. 208r name of Christ, though in plain defiance of God and Man. Nor were these fatherly Practices of his confined to England: In all other Countries the influence he had was to be measured by the mischiefs which he did. Good, he did none to any Country; but at best filled all with superstition and idolatry, and abused them at a mighty Price, every where a public Trader in the impious cheat of Pardons and indulgences; as if the most high God were his confederate in an infamous bargain and fraud; as if the infinitely just God, would, for money to one who thus blasphemed his name by cheating his creatures in it, encourage all Criminals by remitting all Crimes. Did the worst Sallies and Inventions of Paganism, from its beginning to this Day, ever commit half the spoil, or shed half the blood

8 ⎡can⎤ 14 ⎡and wicked⎤ 18 ⎡to any Man⎤ 23 ⎡see⎤

The Reign of Henry III

345

that some Popes have shed and committed, sometimes in one Reign, nay in one year? I doubt that many a single massacre proceeding from the spirit of Popery, and executed in one or a few nights, cannot be matched, either in number or cruelty, by all the men slain upon a religious score in the whole extent and progress of Paganism; fol. 208v I will even venture to | include their human sacrifices, which were not made out of cruelty, though the pagan Priests sometimes gratified their own that way. Neither did paganism abolish the great Law of Nature, and the divine Guidance of Reason, as Popery has done; nay it has condemned that divine Guide as impious and damnable. I leave it to the consideration of all religious, that is, of all reasonable men (for I conceive Religion without Reason to be none, or which is worse, a dishonour to the Dignity of man) whether the Good done to the World by its conversion from Paganism to Christianity, be not too nearly ballanced by the perversion of Christianity into Popery, which has proved as barbarous a Foe to the Religion of Jesus as to the Religion of Nature, upon which the former is founded. But to leave the Pope for a while; the great favorite De Burgh, who had caused the unjust Fall of so many, is now near his own. If the best Ministers are not without enemies, the worst must have many. His were many, as well as busy. Whoever is Great at Court, is sure of as much hate as flattery, often from the same men. The King is persuaded to recall the Bishop of Winchester; who, well apprized who it was that had procured his disgrace, resolves to prevent the fol. 209r return of it by the ruin of the Author. | He particularly aggravated to the King the dishonour of so many Insults from the petty Prince of Wales upon the powerful Monarchy of England. The King in answer pleaded his great want of money, even for the daily subsistence of his Family. The Bishop then laid before him ‘the ill management of the Treasury; the Officers there called to no account; the benefit of Wards, the rents of vacant Benefices, with those of all Lands fallen to the Crown from Death and Confiscations; the great sources of money to former Kings and of their independence upon Parliaments, of late all granted away’. The King is convinced; those Officers and other Creatures of De Burgh are removed, and called to account, the 10 ⎡it⎤ 22 so ⎡many2⎤ 25 ⎡it was that⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

346

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 6

Creatures of the Bishop placed in their Room, his Son made Treasurer, his great Confident, Segrave, created Justiciary,9 and De Burgh’s Patent, though for Life, is taken from him.10 After this act of power against him, and his dismission from it, he is ordered to answer the many heavy charges against him; and the falsest of them were believed true, where the most of them were really so bad. His defence was as defective as his conduct had been outrageous; and as hitherto he had never been accountable, ’tis plain he never dreamed of being called to account. He had trusted to his own power | and the King’s weakness: He might have considered fol. 209v what he daily saw, that no small part of that weakness, was his headlong passions and changeable humour. He who had so often taught him to remove, nay to rage against others once in high favour, might have foreseen an easie possibility of a new Favorite arising in his place, and then teaching him to dismiss and to hate and to persecute himself. All wicked men are blind, else they would not be wicked: Wicked great men are the wickedest, therefore the blindest of all men. The mischief which they do to others, serves for a precedent and a warrant to others to return that mischief or more upon Them. It was thus that he had made way for his own ruin and the advancement of his Rival; and just so or worse his Rival will act, be disgraced and suffer in his Turn, though not enough or so much. Of the mighty embezzelments and defalcation of the King’s money he could give no account at all, but pleaded an exemption from giving any. The Bishop of Winchester, who supplanted and succeeded him, and urged the several articles against him in the King’s name, by way of aggravation told him, that ‘he was likewise accused

2 ⎡and⎤ 3 ⎡is⎤ 4 ⎡against him,⎤ | ⎡from it,⎤ 18 and wWicked 9

Stephen de Segrave (c. 1171–1241) succeeded Hubert de Burgh as chief justiciary of England in 1232 and played a role in the latter’s trial. As an active coadjutor of the Bishop of Winchester, Segrave incurred some of the opprobrium heaped on Henry III’s Poitevin royal favourites. In 1234, he lost his office as justiciary, but it was not long before he once again had an influential position at Henry’s court, which he retained until his death. 10 Hubert was stripped of his office and imprisoned shortly afterwards. In 1233 he escaped from Devizes Castle and joined the rebellion of Richard Marshal, the third earl of Pembroke (1191–1234). In 1234, Edmund Rich, archbishop of Canterbury, brought about a reconciliation.

The Reign of Henry III

347

of many pernicious Counsels given to the King; to the great detrifol. 210r ment of the King and Kingdom’. This imputation, | though very true,

ill became the Bishop, who will be found to be from the beginning of his new power, the most infamous and pestilent Counsellor that ever abused his place, or misled a King, or oppressed a People. The King, who never either loved, or hated, or acted, with temper or dignity, pursues his late Minion with vengeance as implacable as his kindness to him had been boundless. He was always a Puppet in the hands of his Ministers. This very man had long and implicitely managed his passions: Winchester does it now as implicitely, and raises and perpetuates his fury against that very man: For, in the Bishop’s Religion, charity, and mercy, and justice were none of the ingredients. He proved indeed so black a Traitor, that, compared to him, De Burgh with all his enormous guilt, seems a very pardonable Criminal. De Burgh, who in prosperity had never allowed any man, whom he had doomed to ruin, the Plea of privilege and a fair Hearing, claims it in his distress to himself, claims from the King what he had taught him to deny to all others; and the Bishop not yet strong enough openly to defy Law and the Barons, all tender of their Rights, allows him to answer in Form. All he could gain by this fol. 210v indulgence was a little respite. He was guilty, could | not stand a Tryal, and took Sanctuary in a Monastry. The Parliament, who had just granted the King an Aid, address him to hasten the Trial. The King, in a rage, orders the Lord Mayor to force him from the Monastry: the Citizens, in thousands, are ready to execute his Commands against such a barbarous Enemy to the City, and can hardly be restrained, even after the thing was forbid as unsafe, chiefly upon the representation of the Earl of Chester, an enemy indeed to De Burgh, but a generous and just man, who would not hurt the worst man by unfair Means. He was afterwards by the King’s Commands taken in a Chappel in the Country, his feet chained under the horse’s belly, and thus like an ignominious Criminal carried to the Tower; a grateful spectacle to the Citizens, whom he had once so wantonly despised, spoiled, maimed, whipped and jayled. But the King, terrified with the clam17 priviledge 25 – 26 Monastry],: and 27 barbarous] and bloody 28 ⎡the thing⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

348

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

our and threats of the Clergy for violating Church Immunities, restored him again to the Chappel, with Orders, however, to debar him from all Provisions there: So that, to avoid starving, he surrendered his person, was again carried to the Tower in flatters, and once more greeted with the scorn and reproaches of the Citizens. When he was first seized in the Chappel | he was found fortified fol. 211r with the Cross in one hand, the Host in the other. No fear of God or Man could restrain him formerly from the highest Offence against God, by doing injuries and injustice to men: Yet he is now applying to Heaven for protection against the Call of Justice; as if Heaven could be partial to a Criminal, and deaf to the Cries of a whole People, robbed and oppressed by him: Or, as if religion and righteousness were different things, or the former could dispense with the latter. It is the use which wicked men make of Religion, as a charm to avert divine wrath after they have ever so much or so long provoked the Divine Being: Thus it will ever be as long as Morality and Virtue pass not for the Essentials of Religion, as they certainly are, yet as certainly do not where ever Almighty God is represented as accepting Equivalents in their stead; and where Grimaces, such as the greatest Criminals may perform, are accounted Signs of Goodness and of Reconciliation with God; a manifest encouragement to the worst men to hope for celestial Mercy as much as the best can. Whoever trusts that he can make commutation for sin, need not fear the effects of it; and sin must needs abound, when men have found the art of compounding for Sin. | This is a dangerous superstition, more fol. 211v threatning the Society than even Atheism, which can have no motive from the other World, to do Evil in this. Nor can there be a better Reason given for the difference found between China, so full of People and Happiness, and other Countries equally fertile, but very miserable and almost desart; than that the Magistrates and men of Learning there profess no Religion but that of nature; and else where the State fosters superstition and supports a Host of holy Juglers to propagate and defend it with awful jargon and solemn and expensive Buffonries, to the utter extinction of Religion, to the enslaving of all

8 Offences 12 ⎡Or,⎤

The Reign of Henry III

349

the rest in their Persons, Fortunes and Faculties, but to their own infinite Lucre and Importance. But De Burgh’s Successor in power, will furnish us after his disgrace, with more reflections of this kind. He himself, by flying to a Sanctuary from the King’s vengeance, no doubt considered himself not as the King’s Subject whilst there, and as he could not consistently with clerical privileges be taken thence by the King’s power, it was plain there was another Sovereignty in England besides the King’s: A shocking Solæcism in any Government, indeed destructive fol. 212r of all | Government, and as dangerous an insult upon Religion as upon civil Government. Religion cannot be safe, or said to subsist, where religious Men shelter Sinners; nor the State be secure, where any Place, any Man, or any body of Man, can protect Traitors, or any Offenders against any Law Sanctuaries were in fact worldly Citadels unnaturally held by religious men for the worldly Ends of power, therefore more abused than any other. All power which operates by worldly means, is worldly, and miscalled when it is named spiritual. Spiritual men therefore in their Claims of power, mean worldly power, and by claiming some, claim all; since whoever aims at being independent aims at being Master: Nothing less can make him Independent. Whatever coerces men, awes them by secular punishments, or encourages them by secular rewards, is secular power; and there can be no other: nor can spiritual men have any but what secular men give them; and then ’tis still secular power in spiritual hands. Whatever touches the persons and properties of men, is temporal and civil. Nor can spiritual men have any other faculty or employment under that Character, but the exercise of spiritual Lessons; an fol. 212v employment from which | neither God nor nature debars any man whatsoever and wherever ’tis confined to any particular denomination of men, ’tis so confined by worldly power for political Ends; and from that worldly power only such spiritual Denomination is derived. Sanctuaries were a part of the monstrous Machinery of Popery, maintained by the Pope to bridle Kings, who were therefore his Vassals; miserable Vassals, as all Churches were Sanctuaries, a Fortress in every Parish, in some Parishes several, all maintained by his Militia in defiance of public Justice and the power of the Crown. Men are apt

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

350

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

to be most tender of their weakest Claims: The Clergy have always shewn themselves very tender of theirs to power and opulence. Instead rejoicing and assisting at taking a base Criminal out of a Chappel, which to a pious man would appear polluted by his being there, and by his seeking unjust protection from a sacred place, they menace damnation to all who took De Burgh out of it, without excepting the King, who was Bigot enough to fear the spiritual effects of such a Curse and could not but know its dreadful influence upon the blind multitude, bereft of all sense and all charity, that is of religion, as well as reason, by the witchcraft of Popery. | The unsteady King, as mean as unsteady, after all this vehemence fol. 213r and parade, chiefly overcome by a sum of money from De Burgh, dropped his wrath and the pursuit of public Justice, and restored him his Estate. That very sum of money, so large as to be a fresh proof of his Guilt, had only one effect upon the King, to make him pleased that he had got it. Of all the Friends and Followers of his Fortune, many of them raised by it, there was but one who during his distress, supplicated the King in his behalf. His enemies, some of them his former Friends, when they saw the King relent, conscious of what they had done, and what to expect, if he recovered favour, besought the King in a body for his capital punishment. But he was not yet disposed for a new change of humour, which was the sole standard of his punishments and pardons. De Burgh was however, for the present confined in a Castle, from whence, to save his life from the bloody snares of the Bishop of Winchester, he escaped by the assistance of his Guard, and once more took refuge in a Church, but was forced from it by the Governor of the Castle, yet restored to it again, upon the uproar amongst the Clergy and dreadful Menaces of Excommunication from the Bishop of the Diocese. But though the | King, in submis- fol. 213v sion to Churchmen, caused him to be returned to his Sanctuary, as once before, he likewise as once before, in a fresh Caprice, strictly enjoined the Sherif to prevent the supplying him with any subsistence; yet sometime afterwards received him into Favour, even after he had escaped and joined the King’s enemies in Wales.

2 their| s | Claims | opulencye 12 a] [[...]] 33 ⎡the2⎤

The Reign of Henry III

351

The reason which Henry gave why he dropped the Prosecution of such a Parricide, namely, ‘that he would rather be thought an easie good natured Prince, than a cruel Tyrant’, was absurd and could do him no credit. It was cruelty to pardon so universal a Traitor, and he did it from no Principle but in a Freak, as he did most things. Besides he delighted and persevered in cruel measures, was a cruel oppressor of his People, a constant enemy to his best Subjects. His fury against De Burgh arose from no concern for Justice, from no tenderness for his People so mercilessly treated by that lawless Minister, and by pardoning and restoring him he shewed his contempt for Justice, Law, and People. Henry had as little notion of private and personal, as public Justice. The greatest Tyrants of any discernment, have affected to appear exact in matters of property, to protect the Rights of Indifol. 214r viduals, to allow the Laws their free course. | Henry, who had a heart formed for tyranny, wanted a head: He awarded estates to such as he loved, took them from those whom he disliked, without saving Appearances. His Brother Richard, as Earl of Cornwal, finding a Manor there possessed by one Waleran a German, ordered him to surrender it or produce his Title: Waleran who had none or would produce none, trusting to the King’s partiality, appealed there, and there found success against Right. Henry without scruple or inquiry commanded that Prince’s Officers, who had, as they ought, seized the Manor for their Master, to restore it to Waleran. Richard represented to his Brother that ‘he had proceeded legally, and only taken his own, when no other man could prove it to be his: Waleran could not claim it without a Title. If there were any doubt, let the Law decide it: To that decision he referred himself ’. This was so reasonable, that the King fell into a violent rage, and for answer, commanded him to restore the Manor or leave the Kingdom. The Prince heated by such injustice and brutality from a Brother, bravely declared that, without the Judgment of his Peers, he would do neither; and, whilst the King paused upon the furious Counsel of De Burgh to imprison him, leavfol. 214v ing the Court, went to take | counsel of the Earl of Pembroke.

8 ⎡from2⎤ 22 had ⎡there found⎤ 26 ⎡and⎤ | took ⎡taken⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

352

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

As this violent instance of Injustice in the King happened soon after one much more violent and alarming, the suppression of the Great Charter; Pembroke, who loved his Country, abhorred the King’s measures, and had courage to oppose them, readily improving the resentment of the Prince, and such a desirable juncture, offered him his Life and Fortune, and undertook for the concurrence of most of the Barons. A noble confederacy is formed of many great Lords, to force the King to restore the Charter. De Burgh perceived his dangerous folly in furnishing the injured Barons with the King’s Brother for their head,11 and took the properest methods to recover him, by granting him all his demands and a greater Revenue. Richard, when his own Griefs were thus removed, no longer felt those of the Public, nor further assisted the oppressed Lords, who had assisted him when he was oppressed. He minded not the Nation’s want of their Charter, now he himself wanted nothing. Perhaps he was of the opinion of the Prince of Condé, who, though in arms against the King, rejected a proposal for distressing the Court, because it pinched the Prerogative; ‘on m’apelle Louis de Bourbon, et je ne veux pas borner l’autorité royale’. | Richard was gratified, the fol. 215r Confederacy thence broken, and the Confederates, who had procured his gratification, left not only without any, but under the higher displeasure of a King, who had as little mercy as honour. When De Burgh was disgraced, it is natural to think that the Bishop of Winchester his Successor, observing what he had done, and what he had suffered, would avoid his measures to avoid his Fate. But as he had the same predominant Passions, which seldom use foresight or take warning, he improved his Predecessor’s Plan of Misrule and abused King and People without measure or shame. The King who had but one shortsighted View, namely to indulge his own silly humours without Controul, and thought that this was Reigning, perceived not that it was not He, but his Minister who reigned, and that by absolute power in the Crown, the Minister only meant the absolute use and exercise to himself. So that, instead of doing his

14 oppressed];. nor ⎡He⎤ | ⎡not⎤ 15 ⎡himself⎤ 29 ⎡namely⎤ 32 He ⎡the Minister⎤ 11

In the 1230s, Richard, earl of Cornwall (1209–72), the second son of King John of England and the brother of Henry III, had often supported the baronial opposition to Henry.

The Reign of Henry III

353

Duty by advising the King to do his, by protecting his Subjects in their Rights and Possessions, he advised him to take them all away: As if a Prince could serve himself by hurting Them, or a Minister serve him well by counselling him to use Them ill. fol. 215v This very Reign (if it may be called a | Reign) is a voluminous Instance, that by every dishonest step which a Prince takes, he so far degrades himself, that in every distress in which he involves his People, he himself is first or last involved; that therefore every Minister who puts a Prince upon such unprincely Courses, or pursues them in his name, is as much an enemy to him as to his People. They are his strength, and ’tis his interest, ’tis his Glory, to make Them his Care: But they can be neither when he uses them like Slaves: Indeed neither Prince nor Minister who does so, can or ought to be safe. A lawless Government will furnish as much excuse as provocation to the People to be lawless: Nor ought such who set them the example, to complain if they follow it. This Reign, as miserable as long, was only so from its miserable measures. The Bishop of Winchester who, to engross all power, meant to prevent all opposition, fell into a sure method of creating opposition, and thence of losing his power. By putting the King upon crushing the Barons, he roused the Barons to resist and weaken the King. His scheme and advice to that Prince, was as preposterous as wicked: He represented them as not to be trusted, and gave a strange reason, fol. 216r because they would not part with their | Rights, Properties, and the Laws by which they held all, and in all which the King was bound and sworn to protect them; he reproached them as unreasonable men, who would not blindly submit to the King’s Will and Pleasure, or rather those of his Minister, and so insolent as not to part with Magna Charta and the Independency of Freemen. From all which he inferred the necessity of reducing and undoing them; and proposed the introduction of Foreigners, and to invest these with the Fiefs, Commands and Strong Holds now held by the Barons, who were therefore to be stripped of all. A desperate Scheme, not more barbarous than unsound, never to be executed without a Civil War, nor to be depended upon long

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2 ⎡all⎤ 26 ⎡he reproached them⎤ 31 to be preferred to ⎡and to invest these with⎤ 33 of] them 35 ⎡long⎤

354

5

10

15

20

25

30

though it took place for a while. These very Foreigners, once possessed of these unjust acquisitions, would in all probability contend as zealously for their security in them, for Law and Independency, as the present Barons did, and were thence now destined to be stripped of them. Some of these Foreigners in Fact did so, particularly Simon De Montfort, who will soon be seen this King’s great Favourite, afterwards in arms against him, in defence of his own and the public Rights, and even making him his Prisoner.12 It was but natural Policy and self preservation: It was the wisdom of the Normans, after the | Conqueror to oblige his Successors to secure them their Ten- fol. 216v ures upon the same Terms that the former Proprietors, the old Free Barons, then robbed of them, had enjoyed them. From hence sprung the Great Charter; from hence so many assurances, and oaths, and obligations from the following kings, so often confirmed, so often broken. Nor without such restrictions could they have been chosen Kings. So that afterwards, to disown the Rights of the People, so sacred and so secured, was to disown their own Right to the Crown. Yet most of them did so, made the Crown as precarious to themselves, as themselves scandalous to all the World, and were as wretched in their Fortune as in their policy. Henry the third, as weak and faithless as the worst of them, finds the same sad consequences, and worse, as his Reign was longer. He might have learned, had he been capable of Learning, how generously the English, however justly exasperated by the extreme madness and tyranny of his Father, had placed himself on the Throne, how tenderly they had treated him, how cheerfully supported him, whilst he behaved himself to Englishmen like a King of England; a character which he bore as long as the Earl of Pembroke lived; and as he | afterwards and immediately departed from that Character, it fol. 217r appeared plainly not to have been natural, but assumed by the influ-

1 ⎡for a while⎤ 6 soon to be ⎡who will soon be seen⎤ 10 Conquesr⎡or⎤t 16 ⎡Kings⎤ 25 him ⎡himself⎤ 12

Chapter 6

7 then seen ⎡afterwards⎤

8 ⎡but⎤

Simon de Montfort the Younger, earl of Leicester (c. 1208–65), was the Anglo-Norman nobleman who led the barons’ rebellion against Henry III during the Second Barons’ War of 1263–64, and subsequently became de facto ruler of England (the First Barons’ War had broken out in 1215–17 between King John and his chief nobles and culminated in the meeting at Runnymede where John was compelled to sign the Magna Carta).

The Reign of Henry III

355

ence and wise counsel of that Earl. He might have remembered, or informed himself, that none of his Predecessors enjoyed peace or happiness any longer than they followed such good Counsels, and that misfortune and sorrow never ceased to follow contrary Counsels. What People can trust a Prince who breaks his Faith and deceives them? What Subjects can love a Prince who oppresses them, and shews that he loves Foreigners beyond them? No Prince partial to Foreigners was or can be popular; especially if it appear that he loves them better than the Natives, by trusting and preferring them more. They almost always come for Place and Lucre, are therefore always rapacious, and, trusting wholly to favour, are therefore always insolent. Hence grow popular Disgusts, not only against them, but against the Prince, who thus distinguishes and exalts Them. Whatever he gives them will be considered as robbed from the Natives; and all robbery is odious, very odious, where ’tis thought to affect the whole Country. This has another dangerous consequence; when they are affronted, the Prince, whose favour as fol. 217v naturally exposes them to Affronts, | as it makes them impatient under Affronts, as well as saucy enough to deserve them, will think himself affronted, affronted by his Subjects at home, and thus growing to distrust and hate them, will redouble his fondness for Foreigners, and his Trust in them. There is yet another consequence as terrible; his passion for Foreigners, his confidence in them, his bounty towards them, will be construed as Indications of evil Designs against his People. So that he not only loses their Hearts (a Loss which admits of no equivalent) but fills them with fear, indignation and despair. When once they consider themselves as objects of his hate, he is in a fair way of soon becoming the object of theirs; and as they will then naturally infer a design in him, to crush and enslave them, they will as naturally fall into measures to prevent so great a calamity, and perhaps at last satisfy themselves that nothing but his utter ruin will secure them against theirs. When he has thus incensed his People, he is at the intire mercy of his Foreigners, who will make the most of so precious an opportunity, to let him see their strength and the need he has of them. They are then his Masters, and he is himself a slave to those whom he 9 appears | ⎡than the Natives,⎤ 12 and ⎡are⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

356

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

called in to help him to enslave his People: He who was so fond of Tyranny, now | feels and undergoes it. If he yet continue to exercise fol. 218r any, ’tis as a subordinate Tyrant, forced to tyrannize by the Command and for the use of his own Instruments of Tyranny. What can he, what dare he refuse them? He has nothing, which they cannot take; and ’tis great condescention in them, if they accept as liberality and Gifts from him, what they are able to take and keep without him. If they leave him his life and crown, the one meerly nominal, both precarious, it cannot be called mercy, much less Favour; since a Mock-Prince is the most wretched of all Characters: Yet even this mock-mercy they sometimes cease to shew him, but with as good pretences, perhaps with less injustice, turn that sword against him, with which he had armed them against his Subjects. Were it not more honourable for him, as well as more safe, to be overcome by his own people? Surely they are at worst, more to be trusted than such Sons of Fortune and violence. Henry the third had not the smallest excuse for his cruel treatment, and distrust of his People, who had proved loyal, peaceable and even zealous, ’till his faithless behaviour, his oppression and violence, allarmed and provoked them. Even after such behaviour, they readily accepted his Promise to amend; nay, after his repeated breach of faith with them, they trusted him again and again: a | commend- fol. 218v able Temper and proof of patience, such as he had neither the honesty to deserve, nor the sense to improve. What could he afterwards expect from them? The only Plea of a Prince for obedience from his Subjects, is his protection of his Subjects. Henry, who reversed the character and condition of Reigning, whilst he oppressed them as Slaves, would have them obey him like Subjects. They were to support him in all his Usurpations in return for robbing them of their Rights. And as it was found that they would not willingly submit to this, Foreigners were to be brought over to force them, and rewarded with their substance for taking it from them. He therefore liked the Bishop’s advice. Two thousand Gentlemen of the sword, chiefly from Gascony, are brought over at once, trusted with all the best Posts and Governments, and even with the Wardships of the young nobility,

2 continues 11 – 12 ⎡with as good pretences, perhaps with less injustice,⎤ 29 Rights ⎡Usurpations⎤ 29 – 30 theirs ⎡Rights⎤ 34 Gascogneny

The Reign of Henry III

357

whence they soon helped themselves to great Fortunes, Heiresses and Alliances. The Barons, who daily felt this mighty Insult, inferred from what they saw, what must follow, that the same State-Jealousy which had already deprived them of public Employments and Honours, would soon attempt to deprive them of their Estates and Fortunes; and that a Plan of power was laid to enslave the Nation by Foreigners. Public fol. 219r discontent | is never without a Tongue. Sullen Murmurs ensue; but the Bishop keeps them from the King’s ear, at least from touching his heart. The Earl of Pembroke, the worthy Son of the first Regent, first and freely warned the King, ‘what discontents, what dangers he had to apprehend from his People for all this favour to Foreigners; what terrible opposition from the Barons, who, if he continued such allarming partiality, would be forced upon proper means to ease the Kingdom of such Blood-suckers’.13 The Bishop, answering for the King, treated this fair Warning with hard Names and Menaces, adding that; ‘it was the King’s Prerogative to employ whom he would; and if these Foreigners were found too few to restrain rebellious Subjects, more should be sent for’. A most indiscreet, because a most unpopular, indeed a most insolent Answer. It was true that the King had a Prerogative to employ whom he pleased; but still a Limitation was implied, that he was not to abuse his Prerogative; as he certainly did whenever he exerted it to the hurt of his People. All the Powers of the Crown were given, and therefore ought only to have been exercised, for public Protection: Nor will any Prince, who is not a Lunatic, deny this. No Prince in his Senses fol. 219v will do all that he can, because he can: No good Prince | will injure his People; no wise Prince will allarm them: No Prerogative whatso-

5

10

15

20

25

3 da⎡i⎤ly 15 [[...]] ⎡allarming partiality,⎤ | ⎡proper⎤ 13

The barons, who were led by Richard Marshal, the earl of Pembroke, demanded the dismissal of the foreigners appointed by Peter des Roches to posts in the royal administration. The king summoned Pembroke to Gloucester in August 1233, but, fearing a trap, he did not go. Pembroke was subsequently declared a traitor. In January 1234 the Earl seized Shrewsbury together with Llywelyn the Great. Finally he crossed from Wales to Ireland, where Peter des Roches allegedly instigated the Earl’s enemies to attack him. He was wounded and captured at the Battle of the Curragh, and died of his wounds on 16 April 1234.

358

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

ever can justify any Prince in either. The highest powers upon this Earth, have their exceptions and restrictions, in order to answer the End for which they are given and taken, nor are such restrictions the less strong because they are tacite; but the stronger, as they are so evident and binding as to need no explanation. All Power whatsoever infers some good purpose; and none who possess it, be their Titles ever so sacred and sounding, can answer the misapplication of it to evil. That of the Great Turk is absolute, but absolute for the Good of the Turks: At least neither he nor they will own the contrary, though the contrary often happens. The only use of limiting Power, is to prevent the abuse of Power: Were it not for the Danger of such abuse, unlimited power would be the best power; since such limitation may sometimes possibly hinder its best Effects. But as eternal experience shews power without express limitation to have been almost eternally abused, it has been found necessary to prescribe its Bounds, as far as they could be prescribed consistently with its Ends and Uses: For these are not to be attained without leaving a great deal to discretion. From this necessary Latitude, bad Princes | have borrowed a pre- fol. 220r tence, and called it their Right, to do whatever they were not in so many Words forbid to do. No Law forbad Henry the third to employ Foreigners; since Foreigners might be of service to the State as well as to him; nor was it foreseen that he would employ none, or chiefly none, but Foreigners. It was always to be presumed that no Prince would deprive the Natives of their Birth-Right and their native advantages, keep the People subject only to the punishments of their Country, and bestow the benefits and emoluments of their Country, only, or mostly, upon strangers. This extravagance, this faithless and ignominious treatment, this wild exertion of power so shameful to himself, so injurious and barbarous to them, so contrary to all Duty and Morality and Sense, Henry called his Prerogative. Such a dreadful Claim maintained by the King, such a frantic spirit in him, such abandoned Counsellors about him, such desperate Courses taken to maintain all, drove the Barons into measures for self defence and the public security. It is observable, that this Host of

13 ⎡sometimes⎤ 26 advantages,] and 29 – 30 ⎡this wild exertion of power⎤ 32 He⎡nry⎤

The Reign of Henry III

359

Foreigners were brought over during a time of Quiet; and as the Court could alledge no want of their Assistance against any popular fol. 220v Commotions, ’twas obvious, both from the | Proceedings and the Language there, what hopeful Points were to be accomplished by them, what occasion there was like to be for them, and what use was to be made of them. The King, by violating the Great Charter, had declared, that he would be bound by no Law, governed by no Rules, nor suffer his Subjects to enjoy any certain Rights. To establish this savage Sovereignty in himself, and eternal Chains upon them, he calls over and arms a Body of strangers. When they complain of such violent courses taken without any provocation given, he threatens to call over more, and confesses his proud purposes in it. A very doleful situation and prospect, for a great Nation to find themselves at the meer mercy of a Prince, who had scarce ability and steadyness sufficient to govern a Farm, with honour and courage in the same proportion, but ambition that owned no Bounds! Small capacities are often attended with great conceit, which being always wilful, makes men Dupes to their own weakness, because they do not perceive it, and therefore pliant Tools to those of superior Craft; for the weakest have some Craft, often a great deal. Craft, which at best is but the Ape of wisdom, commonly either over-acts or under-acts the part, however fol. 221r easily it may serve to | cheat the Multitude. The King and Barons are now left both without excuse; He for taking no warning from them; They, if they take not warning from him. They had by degrees withdrawn from the Court, and began to form a Confederacy. As this was apprehended there, they were summoned to Parliament, but, aware of the Designs against them, refused to come: Again they are summoned, and again refuse. They had however as yet done nothing, nor settled what was to be done. The King’s proceedings quickened theirs. He had received another supply of foreign Adventurers, and was thus as it were in arms against his unarmed People. The Barons, though they had nothing to trust to but their Arms, yet agreed to try expostulations once more, and to lay roundly before him the fatal tendency of his Counsels:

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

10 and1] their | ⎡upon them⎤ 25 do not never take it ⎡take not warning⎤ 26 ⎡with⎤drawn 32 Adventure⎡er⎤s

360

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

Their Deputies even told him, ‘that if he banished not from about him the Bishop of Winchester and the Foreigners, they would chuse a King who should observe the Laws’. A bold Declaration, which could not but inflame the Bishop, who could when he would, and then did, inflame the King, who forming resolutions as hot as his Passion instead of softning the Lords, began to use them with open violence. From some of them he forced their Children, and retained them under Custody as | Pledges for their Parents: From others he fol. 221v ravished their Estates; and when they complained to him of such violence, and reclaimed what they had not forfeited, he answered them with rage, foul names and menaces, bade them be gone for Traitors, or he would hang them. He imprisoned one of them, only for being akin to another, whom he had so wronged and abused. Against such of them as would neither surrender their persons nor children, he prepared to proceed by force of arms. Trusting to his weak policy and preparations, he ventured to call a Parliament, in hopes to awe or influence them to condemn the Barons for the great Guilt of maintaining their common Rights. The Barons came; but the King seeing their strength, and not trusting his own, nay now apprehending the temper and indignation of the Parliament, prorogued it. The Earl of Pembroke, being in his way to it, was apprized by his Sister that Snares were laid for his Life, and returned back into Wales. The King was now under a necessity of either complying with the Demands of the Lords, a part too just and wise for him to take; or of forcing them to give up their all to his Will; the worst choice, and he made it. He issued Orders to all who held of the Crown, to meet him with their several | Forces at Gloucester. But as he could not be trus- fol. 222r ted, he was but partially obeyed. Pembroke and the most considerable confederate Lords, would not meet a Prince who professed to undo them, and was indeed then armed for their destruction. Their not appearing furnished him with a Colour for downing their Lands and Seats to general devastation and pillage: plentiful spoil to his Foreigners to whom he gave it! This was the King’s chief exploit, and even that owning to accident, to differences amongst the Lords; some fickle, some afraid, others bought off, and thence deserting the common Cause, particularly Richard the King’s Brother, who had joined in it, then forsook it, from Motives only interesting to him-

The Reign of Henry III

361

self; the same part which he had plaid before. Pembroke, still firm, though weak, unable to defend the Common Cause, but scorning to give it up, retiring into Wales, gained the Alliance of the Prince of that Country. The King conceiving courage from the weakness of the Earl, and strengthened with a new Recruit of Foreigners, advances into Herefordshire, in order to subdue the Earl’s Castles, but was so daunted with the defence of the very first, as to propose a pacification. He agreed to refer his Dispute with the Barons to the Parliament. He pawned his Royal Word, that he would pay just regard to their Comfol. 222v plaints; and as | that word so often falsified, passed for no more than it was worth, some Bishops, to the scandal of a King, became Sureties to see the King’s word made good. He then desired the besieged to deliver the Castle, only in complement to save his honour, for that in so many days he would restore it to the Earl its Owner; and again engaged his honour for punctual compliance. As the whole of this fair behaviour was a studied fraud, as soon as it had its effect, he laughed at those who would be thus deluded, and breaking his Faith without a blush, still kept the Castle. His head, his heart, and his minister, seemed formed for one another, all at variance with common honesty, therefore with Charters, Law and People. Was so mean and abandoned a man, as all men, who want faith and justice are, fit to wear a Crown? Is not a Crown the most sacred the most honourable of all human Trusts? And can he who prostitutes and debases a Crown, be said to exercise that Trust, or be at all sacred, whilst he tricks and deceives? How are Angels superior to men, but in their superior Truth and Purity? Why are Dæmons reckoned worse than men, but from the opinion and imputation of inherent falshood and malignity? Was his Minister worthy of a fol. 223r Mitre and a Bishoprick and | a Royal Trust, with the character of a Judas and an Assassin? Can folly itself pronounce such a Prince the vicegerent of God? What can be a bolder affront to the Deity? Dare the blindest Bigotry call the Bishop Christ’s Successor, when he was thus disowning his Spirit and defying his Gospel? What are the grand characteristicks of a Christian, but purity and truth? What those of a Bishop, but to excell other Christians in all christian Virtues, and to improve all other Christians in them? What is the great Duty of a King, but to observe the Laws, and cause them to be

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

362

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

observed, to be tender of his People, and, for their sake as well as his own, of his faith and reputation? What the Duty of a Minister, but faithfully to recommend to the Prince all benevolent, all virtuous measures for so high and honourable an End? Judge now of this King, of this Bishop and Minister! When the Parliament met, the King was pressed by the Lords, ‘to replace his confidence in his People: The management and direction of the affairs of the Realm, they said, were naturally claimed by the Peers of the Realm; and to employ strangers was an injury to the Natives’. They particularly urged the removal of that dreadful Precedent, by which | ‘men were condemned as Rebels and Traitors, fol. 223v without being convicted of Treason or Rebellion’. The Bishop of Winchester, master of the King’s conscience and person and power, in answer, upbraided the Peers of England ‘as arrogant for claiming equal Privileges with the Peers of France, and for presuming to hinder the King from punishing obnoxious Subjects, as he pleased’. The other Bishops threatened him with Excommunication for such detestable Positions, directly alienating the King’s heart from his People; but he, still like an insolent parricide appealing to the Pope, frightened them from naming him in the Sentence, which was therefore only general. The Pope was then the greatest enemy to England, except the King himself. The Earl of Pembroke having retaken his Castle by force, the King in great wrath, the more for that the Bishops refused to excommunicate that Lord for recovering his Right, would needs seek revenge in person. Once more he summoned the Lords to join him with their Troops at Glocester, then proceeded into Wales, but was soon forced to march from thence; the prudent Earl having cleared the Country of all Provision and Forrage. As he had withdrawn into Monmouthshire for subsistence to his Army, it was so heedlessly | quartered, that the Earl attacked it by night; and totally fol. 224r routed it. The King missed the danger by being safely lodged, with several of the principal Officers, in a Castle, but was so scared, that though still superior in Forces to the Earl, he hasted back to Glocester. The Earl was soon after surprized by a Royal Commander, but escaping by the death of that Commander, improved his good for-

8 ⎡they said,⎤ 16 plead⎡s⎤ed 31 ⎡and⎤ 32 ⎡safely⎤

The Reign of Henry III

363

tune with daily success, routed the King’s Army, ravaged the Territories of the King’s Favorites, and even burnt Shrewsbury, without opposition from the King, whose Fears kept him close in Glocester, and even told him that he was not safe there, but hurried him away to Winchester; where he was advised to come to an accommodation with the Earl, now so fortunate and powerful, and master of so many fine Countries upon the Severn. But the King, now at a distance from dangers, governed by the Bishop, who seems to have been as mad, and was surely as wicked, as his Master was weak, insisted that the Earl should first come and cast himself at his Feet, with a Halter about his neck, confessing himself a Traitor. This was the unnatural stile of a Conqueror, in the mouth of a poor timid and defeated Prince, flying from a brave injured Subject, yet imperiously refusing to make peace after such miserable defeats and disgrace in War; a fol. 224v War as odious as it was unjust; no money | to carry it on, no hopes of aid, the hearts of the People lost, or rather on the other side, no wisdom no courage, but mighty Pride and high Language! Under so much mismanagement and distress, the Bishop of Winchester found a resource, such as it was odious to God and man; but worthy of Him. He contrived to draw away the Earl into Ireland, by engaging the King’s Officers there, all the Bishop’s Creatures, to enter and lay waste the Earl’s Estates in that Kingdom, and for their Warrant, sent them an Order of the Privy Council, where his sway was absolute; by which Order they were likewise enjoined to take him dead or alive, if they found him on that side; and for their reward, they were promised all the Earl’s Lands there, nay had a Grant of them sent over in Form under the King’s hand, unknown to the King, with the Great Seal affixed, unknown to the Chancellor. The Governors of Ireland zealously undertook the insidious and bloody Trust. The Earl’s Lands are plundered: He hastens over to punish the brutal outrage, is betrayed and stabbed in the back. Thus perished that brave patriot, a man of the first quality, first merit, in the Kingdom, long persecuted by the Court, then murdered by the King’s chief Minister: no astonishing Return under such a King for

5

10

15

20

25

30

7 – 8 ⎡now at a distance from dangers⎤ 20 ⎡but⎤ 27 ⎡in Form⎤ 28 affixed,] [[...]] 29 Ireland] now 30 hastens] as 31 – 32 back];. ⎡Thus perished that brave patriot⎤ 34 Minister];:

364

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

the faithful Services | of the Regent his Father to the Kingdom and fol. 225r the Person of the King! Whilst this infernal Prelate was rioting in power and crimes, another Prelate, the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, one who loved his Country, gained credit with the King, and improved it worthily. He shewed the King, ‘how much it behoved him to remove a Minister so universally detested, and with him all Foreigners, who only served themselves, provoked the people, and threatened his own certain ruin’.14 Henry was frightened, and seemed convinced. The Traitor Bishop is banished to his Diocese; the Treasurer, Peter de Rivaulx, his Son, is removed; so are other Foreigners his Creatures and Favorites, from all the principal employments, and even ordered to give an account of their several Trusts. What followed was then natural, an advantageous peace with the Prince of Wales, tranquillity and content in England; the King listens to a detail of the iniquities and excesses of his late Ministers, how selfish, how traiterous they had been; with the pestilent Plot against the Earl of Pembroke and his assassination, at which he expressed great amazement, protested his own innocence, nay his grief, and even vehement wrath against the black and perfidious Contrivers. The Arch-Bishop and new Ministers, | improving this good dis- fol. 225v position in the King, called upon the late Ministers for their Answers to the Charges against them. They, conscious that they could make none, took sanctuary in Churches, alledging fear of violence. To remove this excuse the King was advised to grant them Letters of protection for their Persons. The Bishop of Winchester full of guilt and fear, remained fast in his Cathedral, ’till he procured the Pope’s Order, probably by a large Sum, to repair to Rome, as if his advice were wanted there: Nor indeed was all his horrid Trail of guilt any disqualification for a Minister to his Holiness.

16 – 17 ⎡they had been⎤ 24 Churc⎡h⎤es 28 with ⎡by⎤ 14

In April 1234, a week after his consecration as archbishop, Edmund Rich (1175–1240) appeared before the king with the barons and bishops, demanding, on pain of excommunication, that he dismiss his Poitevin councillors, particularly Peter des Roches, the Bishop of Winchester, and his relative Peter de Rivaux. Henry gave in, and the advisors were dismissed, Hubert de Burgh (who had been jailed) was released and made his peace with the king, and shortly afterwards the Archbishop was sent to Wales to negotiate a peace with Prince Llywelyn the Great.

The Reign of Henry III

365

That Father of Christendom that very year published a Bull for a new Expedition against the Saracens, and when in obedience, many crazy Catholicks (for Christianity had a little to do with it, as the Pope had to do with Christianity) had enrolled themselves under the Banner of the Cross, he published another Bull dispensing with their service for so much money a head. Segrave begged longer time, and had it. De Rivaulx appeared; but sauciness and insulting Language was all the defence he made. He seems to have known the King better than any of his Brother Criminals. Henry indeed sent him to the Tower, but soon suffered him to fol. 226r be restored to his Sanctuary; and | not long after acquitted him and another as bad, for money. These proceedings and Changes were however so pleasing to the Public, that the Parliament granted the King a chearful Aid, though they had reason to be highly dissatisfied with his scandalous neglect of his engagements with the Duke of Bretany, so as to force that important Ally of England, to submit to the Terms of France. This good Temper of the Nation shewed their forgiving and placable Spirit, and how easy it was to govern them, by only not oppressing them. But it was fatal to Henry to act preposterously, to be blind to his own interest, honour and ease, and to turn the most promising Incidents to disasters and distress. After he had been long and every where casting about for a Wife, he married a Daughter of the Earl of Provence;15 a marriage celebrated with great and popular Rejoicings, but the source of many and lasting calamities to himself and people, as he and they could not suffer, no more than prosper asunder. The King, who could not live without Favorites, yet never made Favorites of his best Ministers, was now so smitten with a new one, a Foreigner too, the Queen’s Uncle, Bishop of Valence,16 as blindly to leave him the absolute direction fol. 226v of | his Passions, Graces, and indeed of the whole Administration. The great recommendation to Henry’s favour was a conformity to his

5

10

15

20

25

30

6 ⎡money⎤ 11 Segrave ⎡him⎤ 13 were] were 16 Bretanny 27 pro⎡s⎤per 15

Eleanor of Provence (c. 1223–1291). She aroused the hatred of Londoners, because the retinue she had brought over to England included many relatives (known as ‘the Savoyards’), who were given prominent positions in the government and kingdom. 16 William of Savoy (d. 1239).

366

5

10

15

20

25

30

17

Chapter 6

humour, without regard had to sufficiency, or to his own honour, and to what constitutes a Prince’s honour, the prosperity of his People. The Barons, seeing themselves only mocked by the late Change, the same Grievances returning, foreign Minions and Counsels still prevailing, and old Evils recalled by new Instruments, made loud complaints in Parliament against the King’s conduct. He out of Fear retires into the Tower, and, out of Deceit, sends for the Barons thither. His scheme failing by their not coming to him, He returned to them, and promising to cure their Grievances, with an intention still to continue the greatest, thought to amuse them by making some Changes, and removing certain obnoxious Officers; and as his best Actions were never without a bad intention, even in doing this he meant to discharge the Chancellor, a great Officer of worth, therefore unacceptable to him, but was happily disappointed by his refusal to resign to the King an Office which he had received from the Parliament.17 To all this low and dishonest Conduct, add a fresh cause of popular discontent, the arrival of | Embassadors from the Emperor, who fol. 227r had married the King’s Sister, to demand her Portion, which the Parliament had granted, the People paid, and the King wasted.18 Something yet worse followed: He on a sudden recalled the two Parricides, Segrave and De Rivaulx, still under all their guilt and public detestation, to their former Favour and Trust. This boded some very terrible consequences, and soon produced them. Henry, as if he had really been what he seemed willing to make himself, the Pope’s Ward and Deputy, had the incredible Folly and want of shame, to produce in Parliament a Bull from the Pope, revoking all the Royal Grants made by him in his Minority: Whence he gave up at once his Independency and Kingship, and declared the Pope to be Master of his Will and Authority, which therefore could scarce be called Royal. This consideration alone animated the Parliament to reject the Revo-

Ralph Neville (d. 1244) had been named Lord Chancellor of England on 17 May 1226. The appointment was made by the great council when King Henry III was still a minor. Neville was granted the office for life. 18 Isabella of England and Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, were married in Worms Cathedral in July 1235.

The Reign of Henry III

367

cation, with the scorn due to the impious Tyranny of the Pope and to the mean and vicious heart of the King, always tame to oppression from the Pope, so he might by it oppress his People. His credit thus low at home was not higher abroad. He could maintain no War, support no Allies; because his People would not support him. Thus he gave up his Confederates scandalously, and v fol. 227 quietly | bore Insults from all his Neighbours: As all his Negotiations were impotent; all his menaces despiced, and no dependence upon his engagements, all his Treaties were dishonourable. He truckled to the King of Scotland, and durst not offend the Minor of France. Under all these difficulties and so much contempt, the Grandees incensed, the hearts of the People lost, and what he considered most, his Coffers empty, he had recourse to the Charms of borrow eloquence, and employed a ghostly Orator, Friar De la Rale,19 to sooth the Parliament into tenderness and Giving. He told them, that ‘the King had seriously considered the abuses in the Government, was very sorry that they were owing to his misconduct: It grieved him to have been ruled by Strangers, and by their wicked, selfish counsels, to have offended against Right and Law. He would never so offend again, but henceforth commit the administration of England to English-men, more interested in the public Good, in succouring the People and the Crown, and in preventing all oppression’. He begged them, ‘to consider what Debts the King laboured under from the late mismanagements, and hoped they would begin by relieving him first, r fol. 228 upon full assurance from him of his consent to any | Remedy against all other abuses. He even desired not to touch the money given for a Supply; but left it to the disposal of Parliamentary Commissaries to be applied according to public Exigencies’. No force of Words could abolish Remembrance, nor prevail against Experience. He had so constantly broken his faith, that his most solemn Faith could not be trusted. The Parliament answer, ‘that they had given him many Aids, without any condition kept, or proper Return made by him: That notwithstanding such frequent

5

10

15

20

25

30

14 [[...]] ⎡la⎤ 21 to ⎡in⎤ succour⎡ing⎤ 22 to ⎡in⎤ prevent⎡ing⎤ 27 Commxxx⎡issaries⎤ 19

William de Raley or Ralegh (Willelmus deRale in Matthew Paris’s Chronica majora), bishop of Norwich (d. 1250).

368

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

Sums exacted from his Subjects, for their own security and that of his Dominions, his Subjects had been still oppressed, his Dominions still growing smaller; and all the Supplies swallowed by Foreigners’. To what the Reverend Orator urged, the expences of his own and his Sister’s Nuptials, so great as to have wasted all his Treasure, it was replied, ‘that since he had married to please himself, without consulting them, he might defray the expences of his Marriage as he could. For that of his Sister they had granted a large Sum, and he had consumed it’. From this just and vigorous answer, he might see how despicable and necessitous his falshood and misrule had made him. His low cunning long worn out, fails him; all his submission, his | promises, fol. 228v and even the Charms of Oratory, cannot bring him any Credence, where he had so often deceived. His Wants are desperate; he tries all expedients to soften the Lords, and one succeeds. He undertook to reestablish the Grand Charters of their Liberties; and, to assure them of his sincerity, he voluntarily submitted to the most awful imprecations: He moreover, as another confirmation, added to his Council some of the most powerful and popular Barons, who swore a new oath of faithfulness in their Trust. These were tempting considerations, and the Parliament agreed to a Supply; that is to say to reward him for an Engagement to do them no further wrong; for, what he now promised them was their due, already owned to be so by himself upon Oath, an Oath which he had observed with the same exactness as he will now this more tremendous Imprecation: The Pope will at any time cancel his perjury for a further competency of money and vassalage to the Holy See. This pious composition for impiety he seems at present to trust to, and resolves to deserve. He makes no objection to the strong Restrictions annext by the Parliament to their Gift, and readily submits to them all, with a full resolution to trample upon them all. | He was fol. 229r ‘never to admit the Counsels of Foreigners, always to observe those of his Subjects, and theirs only’. He agrees. ‘The money to be raised, was to go into the hands of four Commissaries in every County, to be by them deposited in a Monastry as a place of safety, in order to be again from thence repaid where ’twas first collected, if the King

8 ⎡large⎤ Supply⎡m⎤ 13 of] his 29 [[...]] ⎡no objection to⎤ 31 ⎡all1,⎤

The Reign of Henry III

369

should fail in his Engagements’. To this condition too he submits, and would have consented to a thousand more, since he was determined to observe none, but openly to mock God and the whole Kingdom. The poor, immoral, rash Prince would practise any falshood, run any risk, to gratify present humour, and supply present Wants, without looking backwards, or forwards, to so many difficulties past, all arising from the same folly and ill faith, or to future dangers threatening him from the same Causes and with the same certainty. Whoever values not his Reputation, will value no other Tye. Henry who had lost all, and would regain none, seized without one pause, the whole Supply, and lavished the whole, a great share of it in Bounties to his Favorites, who were still Foreigners: For by Foreigners he was still governed, in spight of all shame, all infamy, public fol. 229v Outcries, and the strongest warnings, even from his Brother | Prince Richard. His highest Confidence was now possessed by Simon De Montfort, Son to the Earl of that name, the famous General of the Army of bloody Catholics against the poor Christian Albigenses.20 This Simon will be found bearing a very considerable part both for and against the King, in the future course of his Reign, in quality of Earl of Leicester. Amidst so much public woe and dishonour, this abject reign is distinguished with an accession of Glory, long ardently pursued, but never obtained by the ablest and best English Princes hitherto reigning. Lewellyn Prince of Wales, now very old voluntarily consented to do Homage to the crown of England, for its protection against the Rebellious Practices of his Son Griffin,21 who thus drove the ancient Prince to give up that boasted Independency which he and his Predecessors had so long and so resolutely maintained. As if this King were not alone a sufficient curse to his People; whilst they were yet groaning under his depredations, and in the bitterness of their oppression, inveighing against his madness, his perjuries, his rapine and his foreigners, there unexpectedly arrived

5

10

15

20

25

30

22 ⎡long⎤ 27 ⎡boasted⎤ | Indepen⎡den⎤cy 20

Simon de Montfort the Elder (1160–1218). Although Gruffydd ap Llywelyn was the first-born son of Llywelyn the Great, Llywelyn excluded him from the succession and declared Dafydd, the son borne to him by his wife Joan, heir to the kingdom. 21

370

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

another Plunderer, a foreign one too, and an Ecclesiastic, of all others not the most | tender. It was the Pope’s Legate, a holy Embassador fol. 230r and generally successful; for he enabled as well as taught men to renounce the world, by easing them of all that they had in it: And he never came but for this pious end. The Clergy were frightened; as they well knew that his sole Errand to Them, was to make arbitrary Demands upon Them: He had no religious Call. The catholic Church flourished here in full superstition and ignorance, unmolested by the Bible, Conscience, Reason or Heresy. Crimes and immoralities he pretended not to restrain; since at a certain price, the heavenly Embassador freely parted with pardons, or Permits for all or any Sins and Impurities whatsoever; and was far from complaining when the demand was highest. The Arch-Bishop greatly blamed the King for suffering the Legate to enter the Kingdom. Alas, the good man knew not that he came by the King’s invitation.22 It was the consequence of a confederacy between the Pope and the King of England against the People of England. The King was to oppress and spoil his Subjects; the Pope was to sanctify such spoil and oppression, for the sake of the King’s assistance to spoil and oppress them too. The Legate, therefore, so well supported here, extended his views of spiritual Traffick further | than ever, and intending to pillage Scotland, then a new mar- fol. 230v ket to such Merchants, acquainted the Scottish King, then at York, with his design to visit the Churches in that Kingdom. That Prince, who knew what that Visit meant, replied, ‘that Scotland never had been used to any such Visitation, and never wanted it less; neither would he suffer any such innovation during his Reign: Besides, he would not answer for the security of the Legate’s Person, amongst a People so fierce and free’. The Legate, who would risk no Martyrdom, even for Gain, dropped his journey for the present, and, deprived of plunder in Scotland, resolved to rake the more in England as will be soon seen.

23 ⎡King⎤ 30 ⎡for the present,⎤ 22

Henry had secretly appealed to Pope Gregory IX to send a permanent legate to England, whose authority might offset that of the archbishop. Cardinal Otho arrived in 1237, and soon won royal favour.

The Reign of Henry III

371

Under so many insupportable Outrages and such devouring misrule, ’tis little wonder to find a new Confederacy formed with the universal concurrence of all Ranks, and headed by Prince Richard: His zeal for the Public was much heightened by a private Pique and an indignity lately done to his Family with the connivance of the King. The Confederates send to the King to request him to fulfill his Engagements. The King always easily frightened, and again as ready submitting, promises to give them satisfaction, and assigns them a fol. 231r Day to explain how. They who | knew him, as all the World did, how much he would promise, how little perform, and was to be trusted in nothing, came to the appointment strongly attended and armed. He who saw that they were come prepared not only to hear but to dictate, shewed all suitable compliance. For these low condescensions he might thank his high Claims and imperious exercise of Power, to which he was neither entitled nor equal, and forced to disown it as meanly as he had assumed it dishonestly, fond of all injustice and violent Courses, unable to defend any, and without any other ressource than what belongs to the meanest man, and is below every great man, Tricking and Falshood. This unkingly, this unmanly Part, was all the Part, that he could play; and he was now playing it. He averred to the Barons with a meek tone, ‘that it was the sincere purpose of his heart to redress all Grievances: For a proof of that Sincerity, he offered to submit himself and all complaints to the judgment and arbitration of a certain number of Lords, one half to be chosen by themselves’. The Barons accept the proposal: A temper in them, which shewed how loth they were to come to extremities, notwithstanding such high Provocations and eternal Breach of Faith! fol. 231v The Arbitrators are chosen, | Regulations made, a plan of Government settled and signed by the King and the Barons. All this was well and regular; but to suffer the Pope’s name or the Legate’s hand in it, was scandalous, dangerous, and below the public Dignity. Yet it was confirmed by the Legate in the name of his Master. This shews, and future instances will still shew it more, what woeful enchantment the Nation must have been then under, thus to pay regard, more than human, to a Friar a thousand miles off, of no more 7 eas⎡i⎤ly 18 ressour⎡ce⎤ 30 Barons];. aAll

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

372

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

real importance to Them than the Mufti, and a thousand times more to be abhorred, as they found him the author of continual Frauds and Oppressions, a shameless and insatiable Plunderer. About this Time died the Bishop of Winchester, so often mentioned, and always to be remembered with detestation. A blacker heart, more bloody hands, more guilty conduct and more pestilent Devices, never claimed relation to a Mitre. Few Prelates were worse men: No Lay-Men could be so bad, as having no such sacred character to profane; nor durst be, as wanting such holy protection for Crimes. He had improved the King in all his evil Qualities, taught him all Lessons | pernicious to his Subjects and to the Character of a fol. 232r Prince, to squeeze them so as to make them unable to assist him; so to provoke them that they would not; and to deceive them so, that they durst not; to reverse the great attributes of Princes, Justice and Mercy, by exalting the worst men, by persecuting and destroying the best; to impair his strength in pursuit of power; to aim at grandeur by mean ways, at ease and Safety by incensing his People; and to lose all reverence from his Subjects by straining their obedience into servitude. The exemplary wickedness of this Prelate, is the rather to be remarked, as he was not only a zealous Churchman, ardent for the Interests of the Holy See, but famous for acts of Devotion and Charity; the founder of several Monastries; a character common to the worst men that ever played the World. By it they think to purchase a reputation, to cover their misdeeds, or to atone for them: A notion which tempts men to be wicked; when they can be so, not only with impunity, but even with Glory and the Odour of Sanctity. Their atonements for Sin are indeed generally as pernicious to society, and as much against the spirit of Religion, as ever their Sins were, however flagrant; as men are thence not only prompted to do Evil with an easie conscience | but to weaken the Industry and consequently fol. 232v the power of a Country, by Settlements for Idlers, who never fail to make others so too, cheating them of their Time, their Senses and their Money, with Cant, and Tunes and Mummery. Before such notions and practises can take place, men must have lost all just notions of virtue, of Society, and even of the Deity. The

9 such] a 11 ⎡to2⎤ 17 ⎡and Safety⎤ 36 Deity] Though their best interest, | . | tThe

The Reign of Henry III

373

exercise of virtue, though their best interest, is too seldom pleasing to their passions; and as experience shews that to gratify their passions, they will risk any danger, even the most apparent and capital; will they not gratify them yet more freely, whenever they can with safety? The worst Parricides that founded Monastries, were always Saints with the Monks, who have frequently made them appear so to others. But God is not to be mocked, nor served by ways hurtful to Society, which is supported by the exercise of Industry and active virtue; nor is he to be pleased with fooleries below the Dignity of Man, nor bribed by Brokerage and Commutations, nor appeased by the Offerings of Parricides, the Erecting and Decorations of Buildings, and the Maintainance of lazy Fraternities. This Bishop was succeeded by another Foreigner, and a Favorite, fol. 233r the Queen’s Uncle before | mentioned, a Man utterly unacquainted with the Constitution and Laws of England and even with the English Language. To procure this irregular Election of an unpopular and obnoxious Man (for the Monks had already chosen another) Henry, who thought his liking the man to be qualification enough, was at the expence of an Embassy to Rome, and of mighty Bribes, the constant and most prevailing argument there. This preferment was a new proof how little he regarded his late, any more than his former engagements; nor was it the only proof of that kind. De Montfort, another Favorite, though he had debauched his Sister the Countess of Pembroke,23 yet gained his consent to marry her, and was created Earl of Leicester. The King, eternally fickle, indeed afterwards upbraided him in public for what he had done, shewed great wrath when ’twas too late, then admitted him again to too much Trust. His love and hate were alike sudden and uncertain. His fondness often ended in enmity, his enmity in preferment. If he persecuted bad Men, it was not for that Reason; and he frequently promoted men against all reason, when he had the best reason for punishing them: So that no man had cause either to dread his Frowns, or to depend upon his Favour long. It was not Reason, but Cav fol. 233 price | and impulse that governed him. Neither Merit nor the want

1 ⎡though their best interest,⎤ 13 Thei| s | 30 – 31 raised ⎡promoted⎤ 32 them];: 23

Eleanor of England (1215–75), the widow of the second Earl of Pembroke.

5

10

15

20

25

30

374

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

of Merit, innocence nor guilt, were the objects of his favour or dislike. We have seen his violent and perfidious behaviour to the last Earl of Pembroke, with the tragical End of that great Man, contrived by his Ministers. For which he expressed concern and pity, and thence much favour to his Brother the next Earl, caressed him and created him Earl Marshal;24 then without any offence offered or alledged, or any warning given, treated him with public marks of scorn and displeasure. The Earl, by one of his Friends begged to know his Offence. The King fiercely replied, that his Brother had lived and died a Traitor, declared himself sorry for granting him the Office of Marshal, but glad that he could remove him at pleasure. The Earl, thus threatned by the King, and knowing the malignancy of his Councellors, especially of Segrave, a stigmatized Traitor, now restored to grace and sway, consulted his own preservation and retired, but was afterwards recalled into former Favour. De Burgh, so often mentioned, as governing, fallen, prosecuted, imprisoned, fugitive, forgiven, and restored, was afterwards, several years afterwards, called to answer for the same Crimes. As he knew what the King, as greedy as unstable | and profuse, wanted, at least what would pacify him, he fol. 234r proved his Innocence by presenting him with four fine Manors, and was discharged. This unsteady humour was seen in all his transactions. Now he sends Troops to assist the Emperor in his War with the Pope: Anon he receives the Pope’s Bull of Excommunication against the Emperor, and commands it to be published in all the Churches of the Kingdom, though the Emperor was married to his Sister.25 He was in truth generally constant in his condescention to the Pope, as under such authority he might deceive and oppress his People; another Point which he obstinately pursued, or suddenly disowned, according to the measure of his Hopes, or Wants, or Fears.

6 his⎡m⎤ 7 given ⎡offered⎤ 8 ⎡given,⎤ | with] a | mark| s | 18 some ⎡several⎤ 24 and ⎡of⎤ 24

Gilbert Marshal, fourth earl of Pembroke (1194–1241). There were frequent hostilities between Frederick II and the Papal States, which were hedged in between Frederick’s lands in northern Italy and his Kingdom of Sicily to the south. The Emperor was excommunicated twice by Pope Gregory IX, once in 1227 for declining to go on a crusade and then in 1239 for going without permission (see fol. 254v). 25

The Reign of Henry III

375

Whilst the Nobility and People suffered all this Mockery and unrelenting Oppression, and found no Security from Laws nor Oaths, but both producing rather Snares and Chains; the Clergy escaped not their share of Calamity and Rapine. All were groaning under a double Tyranny: The Pope enforced that of the King; the King that of the Pope. His rapacious Legate was daily devising and imposing fresh Exactions. His demands were so incessant and shameless, and the Bishops appealing to his Master, made such unanswerfol. 234v able Remonstrances, | that even his Master, who could not justify him, in appearance recalled him, and must in earnest, had not the King interposed and protected this hallowed Plunderer in the Exercise of Plundering his Subjects. The Prelates, left to struggle under this unlimited pillage and servitude, every day producing new Claims, assemble to find a Remedy: The shameless Legate not only appears amongst them, but even then demands another Aid. He had a peremptory and angry Denial: They declared that they would bear his Oppressions no longer, and to shew their indignation, broke up the Assembly and left him without Form: An affront which he would have borne had it been accompanied with the money which yet he was determined to have elsewhere, though he missed it there, and extorted from the religious Houses what Bishop had refused. The Legate, still insatiable, a quality inseparable from the Character, and postponing Fear, and Threats and Danger to his thirst of money, would needs try his Fortune in Scotland, whether he was already denied entrance. The Scottish King, still in the same Humour, proceeded to the Borders purposely to hinder his entrance. The insolent Legate threatned the King; the King scornfully returned the Threats of the Legate, and was at last hardly prevailed fol. 235r on by | some English Lords (strangely attending this pious strolling Extortioner) to permit his journey. That King, however, obliged him to declare under his hand and seal, that ‘he accepted such permission as a Favour purely personal, never to be urged as a Precedent by any future Legate’. Thus he gained the great and only purpose of his apostolic Visitation, all the money that he could exact from the Scottish Clergy. 12 of] his 18 b⎡r⎤oke 27 proceeds⎡ed⎤ 28 ⎡scornfully⎤ 29 returned] and despised

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

376

5

10

15

20

25

30

It may seem strange that the Clergy should have at all complied with any such scandalous Demands in the Pope’s name, however countenanced even by their King, whose power they had often despised and defied. The Truth is, it was the condition and tenor of the Hierarchy, which the papal power was necessary support; and from that power they derived Privileges and Jurisdictions independent of the Monarchy and inconsistent with it. For the Bishops claimed an Independent Power as well as the Pope, and exercised it where he interposed not, and would have been glad that he had never interposed at all. But this was too tender a point for him to give up. The Pope and they had a common Interest to support against the Rights of conscience and mankind; an interest which neither he could support without Them, nor They without | Him. They therefore bore fol. 235v his oppressions because he protected Them in Theirs. Much the same policy was subsisting between the King and the Pope: Yet the Clergy liked it not there. For they would never aid the King against the Pope; but whenever the Pope went about to rob Them, they then wanted assistance from the King. This the King, in deference to the Pope, would never give them. In return the Pope defended the King against the spiritual Censures of the Clergy, when they were aggrieved, as they particularly were by the King’s keeping Beneficies vacant on purpose to enjoy the Revenues, and postponing Elections till by Connivance with the Pope, he could fill them with Creatures of his own. To ballance this concession, the Pope who never made losing Bargains, by connivance of the King, preferred in England whole Hosts of Italian Ecclesiasticks, as he did now three hundred at once, and sent a Nuntio26 with Commands Apostolic to see them settled; if that can be said of Clergymen who never were here, and took care of the Souls of their Flocks without any acquaintance with their persons. Nor durst the Bishops refuse to admit their names into the Livings; for their Persons they never had seen. Such an Enemy to Religion was the Head of the Church! Such an enemy to his People was this King, who was such a Friend to the enemy of Both. ’Tis therefore hardly strange that in excuse to

30 – 31 ⎤ Nor ... seen.⎤ 26

Chapter 6

Petrus Rubeus (Pietro Rosso).

The Reign of Henry III

377

fol. 236r the | Emperor’s Embassadors, for his having directed the Bull of

Excommunication against that Prince to be published in England, he pleaded, ‘that he was the Pope’s vassal, and durst not but obey him’, a title very suitable to his conduct! But after this it was utterly inconsistent to assume that of Sovereign, when he had thus renounced Sovereignty and was daily acting not only as the Pope’s vassal but as the Vassal of the Pope’s Legate. This indefatigable Implement of the Pope’s avarice and his own, when he seemed to have exhausted all his devices for squeezing money, and had left little more to be squeezed, exhibited a new artifice and claim of a surprizing strain. He published in Form, ‘that he had a power not only to absolve all who had vowed themselves to the service of the Holy Land, but to excommunicate all such who would not pay a price for their absolution’. Could the Pope, could this Legate and those of his Garb and Spirit, who confidently engross and profane the character of Holy, believe that there was a God, yet thus sport in his name with the Souls and Bodies and Purses of his Creatures? Doubtless they would have burnt all that doubted it, and called them Atheists for defending the honour of the Almighty against the worst of all Blasphemers, fol. 236v those who | father upon him their own selfish guile and gross Impieties. Is the want of Religion, however to be lamented, more lamentable than the shocking Mockeries which they call Religion? The Legate, equally unblessed with mercy and shame, and acting by an authority which allowed neither, made yet another Demand still more astonishing; if after what had passed, any of his could create astonishment. He required for the use of the Holy See no less than the Fifth Part of the Goods of all the English Ecclesiastics. The Bishops struggled and resisted for a while. The King zealously espoused the Pope’s cause. The good Arch-Bishop, for peace, proposed, in Lieu of Goods, a Fifth of the ecclesiastical Rents. A generous composition, which yet the Legate long refused to accept, as injurious to the Claims of the Pope; by which he signified that the Pope had a Claim to all: A Claim which will, not long afterwards, be asserted in Terms.

1 ⎡his⎤ 5 renowned⎡ounced⎤ 17 thenre

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

378

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

All these barbarous Tolls and Exactions not satisfying the Father of Christendom, He sends a Nuntio (under a different pretence) to levy another imposition, when the last was hardly yet levied. The Pope’s Wants to defend the Church, furnished eternal colour for eternal impositions. This Nuntio, under-Agent to the Legate, had his Commission restrained | to the Monastries; where dropping, by dir- fol. 237r ection, the papal stile, hitherto altogether imperious, he had recourse to artifice, and addressing himself to their superiors, one by one, pressed them, soothed them, or awed them, according to their different Tempers, into a Bounty to the Pope under his terrible necessities: Then making his success with one Abbot an Argument with another, he persuaded all to imitate such laudable example. He had even drawn them into promissory Notes under their hands: These he secretly shewed to such as continued to refuse, and enjoined secrecy to all on pain of Excommunication. For it seems this was to be a sort of silent Plunder by consent, too shameful to be owned, too proffitable to be dropped. The whole was exposed by the opposition of two Abbots, who upbraided the Legate with the Nuntio’s infamous craft, and extortion, even in the King’s presence. But the King was so far from blaming this oppressive Fraud, and from pitying or succouring his subjects under it, that he brow beat the poor Abbots, who besought his protection, and offered the Legate one of his Castles to imprison them in. The discovery however of this holy and unrighteous Plot, defeated it; the Nuntio was scared and desisted. But as holy Church must lose nothing, even of her most antichristian Demands without an equivalent, the Legate, who never blushed | nor fol. 237v relented, again assembled the Clergy, and confidently asked a Subsidy for the Pope to support him in his War against the Emperor. They rejected his Demand with great spirit. ‘The Pope they said, as he alone, and not the Church, had excommunicated the Emperor, ought alone to maintain his own Quarrel, and they would not concern themselves in it. They were too poor to comply with all the Pope’s exactions; nor would they longer bear to see the Church of England Tributary to Rome’. This opposition was brave and just; and the Legates seeing their violent disgust towards his master, durst not further exasperate them. But as in an affair of money, so dear to Churchmen, he would remit nothing, he had recourse to an artifice much like that of the Nuntio, but more successful. He made a party

The Reign of Henry III

379

amongst the Clergy; and in doing it the King condescended to be his most useful Instrument since by promises, and threats, by pensions and preferments or frowns, that Prince forced numbers to comply, as their Example did all. Nay delighting much in exercising civil, as in advancing spiritual rapine, he at this very juncture, was committing spoil upon his people all over the Kingdom, by his Judges Itinerant, who under the mockery of Law and Redress, devoured them by Fines and Confiscations.27 fol. 238r | So compleat was the misery of the Subject under this double headed tyranny. It must surely have been some consolation to them to see Otho, the Cardinal Legate depart, as he now did; one who had so long tormented and crushed them, and done it the more by being in high favour with the King. He was a fit man for his Post, fit to be employed by the Pope, especially by Gregory the ninth, to lead and mould Henry the third, and to press and wring a Country under pious pretences, without fear of God or mercy to Men. He was literally a Prelate of prey, without the excuse or courage, or strength of other animals with that Character: What They scorn to do, He preyed upon his own species. It was yet a fresh consolation to the poor sufferers, sure I am ’tis so to the Readers, that of all this odious Plunder to gratify the greedy spirit of the Pope and his own, neither of them enjoyed any part. It was, as ’twere providentially all seized by the Emperor’s Officers, and applied by him against the Pope, for whom it was gathered, as he said, against the Emperor. The departure of the Legate brought no Relief to the English. His spirit, his maxims and example remained with the two Nuntios left behind him.28 They ravaged England and Ireland, as another did fol. 238v Scotland, with unlimited Barbarity. Pope Gregory | the ninth considered this Kingdom to be so much his property, encouraged to it by the King who owned himself his vassal, that he formed a project to farm out all the Benefices in England to the Prelates, reserving a moyety of the Rents to himself.

5

10

15

20

25

30

18 Character],: and, wWhat tThey | ⎡He⎤ 26 examples 27

These judges travelled around the countryside on a periodic basis, taking the king’s justice far beyond his immediate centres of authority. 28 Petrus Rubeus and Petrus de Supino.

380

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 6

The civil oppression continued still to accompany the Ecclesiastical, and the King vied with the Pope as well as assisted him. As he was ever squandering, therefore ever wanting money, he was eternally robbing or contriving how to rob his miserable Subjects. If any sort of them could be said to have most cause of complaint, it was the Jews. These unhappy Fugitives, entituled to the more tenderness for being so, especially as they were obnoxious to the prevailing Bigotry, which had banished all Religion, of which justice and humanity are essential parts, were yet the constant objects of his most merciless usage and demands, and pillaged to defray his incidental extravagances: They were at this very time, upon the magnificent reception and entertainment of one of the Queen’s Uncles, forced to redeem themselves from expulsion by a mighty Sum for those Days.29 In his frantic fondness for the Queen’s Relations, whom he studied to oblige and enrich by Ways equally frantic, at the expence of the hearts, | the purses and the birth right of his People, he procured a fol. 239r Brother of hers to be raised to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury,30 a young man and a Foreigner, without reputation, and even without English, yet raised to the highest dignity and trust in the Church of England: Thus in the Church every thing was done, that was most opposite to Religion; in the State whatever was most unlike Government. Henry’s behaviour towards the two Welch Princes, David and Griffin, who both applied to him for the Principality, now old Lewellen was dead, who had first done homage for it to the Crown of England, was too low for the lowest Member of human Society. For a bribe he undertook the cause of Griffin against David, threatning David with deadly war. For a higher bribe, he espoused the

20 Church] of England 25 dead,] He 27 – 28 David,] who has said the Principality, ⎡and⎤ provided it to Griffin, and threatned⎡ing⎤ 29

A clause from one of the law-books compiled in England in the first half of the twelfth century reads: ‘Jews and all their property are the king’s’. In exchange for a price, the Norman and Angevin kings offered protection to Jews, and exempted them from the Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. They also ruled that Jews were to sew a yellow cloth patch on their outer clothing in order to publicly mark them as Jews. See Bartlett, England under the Norman and Angevin Kings, pp. 351–60. 30 Boniface of Savoy (c. 1217–1270). He was the brother of Queen Eleanor’s mother, Beatrice.

The Reign of Henry III

381

interest of David against Griffin, to whom he had first engaged his faith, as by a contrary agreement with David, he did to confine Griffin in the Tower. His conduct towards France and in France was suitable to his constant Character every where, weak and dishonourable. He broke the Truce and his Oath, and undertook an unjust War, to supv fol. 239 port | the Earl of Marche (who had married his Mother,31) in throwing off his allegiance to the French King, Lewis the ninth, whose sworn Vassal the Earl was. He even ventured to call a Parliament, and to demand an Aid for carrying on a war in France. He had such an answer as he might have expected, though not so terrible a one as he deserved. The Parliament told him, ‘that the Subjects were so tired with giving him money, and so provoked to see it profusely wasted, that they could give no more’. They upbraided him ‘with lavishing the constant Revenues of the Crown, and all the Sums violently extorted from his People. Neither was the Truce with France expired; and, if he would break his Oath, they would not be confederate in any part of the guilt. What encouragement had they to supply him? What Oaths, so often taken, had he ever kept? What Promises so often and so solemnly made, had he ever observed? Did he not remember the Charters and his behaviour in relation to these?’ They had indeed before they met, agreed to present him with reproaches instead of a Supply. Henry thus rebuked, unsupplied, and unable to reply, prepared however for war, but like one who was not likely to prosper in it. He fol. 240r raised money unjustly by forced Gifts and Loans from private | Persons; and thence incensing all men, shewed how little he was to be feared, because unassisted, nay despised by his People. When he arrived in France, though ill armed, ill horsed, and small signs of Force from the Earl of March, who had raised such mighty Hope; nay though very advantageous offers were made him by the French King, yet Henry, just as fit for a Camp as a cabinet, rejected them, sent a defiance to Lewis, and afterwards carefully avoided to meet him, but is pursued and his Forces routed by him. An accident pre-

6 cause ⎡War⎤ 26 ⎡forced⎤ 31

Hugh X de Lusignan, count of La Marche.

5

10

15

20

25

30

382

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

vented Lewis from following Henry and his own fortune. The Plague in his Army, his own illness and humane temper, made him consent to a Truce for five years, after he had subdued all that the English held in Poitou. Nor was this all: He obtained an engagement for a yearly Sum from England the while. He had before generously pardoned the Earl of March, however provoked by the known attempt of the Earl’s Wife to poison him. Henry insensible to all disgrace and loss, public and personal, passed the winter at Bourdeaux in Riot and Banquetting, and thence consumed whatever money remained. As his army wanted provisions and Cloaths; though it lay at Bourdeaux, he sent for all such to England. He withal ordered the | Archbishop of York, whom he had left fol. 240v Regent, arbitrarily to seize and confiscate the Estate of the English Barons whose Names he sent him. He likewise furnished him with a Charge against them, as if they had left him and returned to England without leave. That is, many of them, who had spent so much in this disgraceful expedition, that they could subsist no longer abroad, were obliged to come home. The Regent was too cautious to obey Orders so very barbarous, but sent over the Stores. Henry soon after sent to demand a supply from the Cistercian Monks, but had an absolute refusal; nor would the Regent force them. Yet, what is indeed amazing, he prevailed with the Parliament to grant the King a handsom Aid, enough to relieve all his Wants; Which however still continued: It was all spent, and the King still at Bourdeaux, without other business than to waste all and still to ask for more. The Regent had at last no resource but that of borrowing in the King’s name from particular men reputed rich, especially in the City; a method which inflamed the popular discontents still more. Henry thus forced to return, instead of doing it by stealth, as became a Prince so forlorn, hated at home, despicable abroad, yet as ridiculously proud as scandalously poor, would needs return | with fol. 241r the parade of a Conqueror. All the Barons of England are ordered to receive him at Portsmouth; where they staid for him a long time and at great expence. Then an Order is sent to the Inhabitants of every Town from thence to London, to meet the King in their richest

7 of] the Princess ( | Wife]) 18 ⎡obliged to⎤ 19 barbarous];, | but] he 20 Cister⎡c⎤ian 28 which] still 32 ⎡are⎤

The Reign of Henry III

383

attire; with another Order to the City, to have his entry there celebrated with the most glaring Magnificence. His first exploit, after he came home, was worthy of such as he had done whilst abroad: He forced another great Sum from the poor Jews. Such a Protector was he of persons and property, and of trade, the great machine of public prosperity, and the Jews the chief movers of that Machine! They could not well gain by it without making his other Subjects gain. Nor do I find that they were ever more exacting, or in greater haste for wealth, than most other Traders generally are: It was no crime in them to be more knowing. But they were the Objects of religious hate, which never shews mercy, nor speaks truth; a consideration moving any human mind, much more that of a great Prince, to pity and assist them. He wasted this Booty from them as quickly as he had come by it dishonourably. He soon wanted another Help, having had a new motive of profusion, by the arrival of some v fol. 241 Foreigners | of Quality, Relations of the Queen. His Necessities force him to try the Parliament; his folly makes him hope to succeed, when he had none but his old Arts and Professions to try, such as deep sense of guilt, self accusations, passionate remorse, resolutions to amend, strong assurances for their security; and the like stale Cant, sometimes unwarily trusted, but always found to be false, therefore at this Time impotent. The Parliament, who knew their own strength, with the assistance of the Clergy, who having been equally oppressed, were now equally against Oppression, and therefore concurred in the common Cause; were forming a Scheme for depriving the King of his power, and committing the whole Administration to a select Council of Four of the greatest and best qualified Subjects; yet without laying aside the person of the King, but leaving him the name (the only part of Kingship he was ever capable of ) and transacting all things in that name.32 A project known to so many, could not but reach his Ear. He therefore in great

5

10

15

20

25

30

5 of1] the 12 to ⎡moving⎤ | humane | to ⎡that of⎤ 19 ⎡such as⎤ 23 as ⎡with the assistance of⎤ 23 – 24 having ⎡who having⎤ 25 concurring⎡ed⎤ 29 ⎡was⎤ 30 ever] was | it ⎡that name⎤ 32

See Matthew Paris, sub anno 1244.

384

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

fear, finding that he could not divide them, but still promising to redress whatever was amiss, prorogued them. It was perhaps an incident not unseasonable to the Temper and Measures of the Parliament, that a Nuntio from the new Pope33 was | reviving the old methods of plundering the Clergy, with an fol. 242r insolence and hardness of heart unworthy of the character of a Christian, but well becoming His. As he came armed with full Powers to punish such as would not comply, he executed the same with an asperity, truly pontifical, and for the smallest cause, suspended, not only the inferiour Clergy, but even Lords-Abbots and Lords-Bishops: That is he disabled them, as he believed or pretended, from discharging their holy Office and saving immortal Souls, because they would not give him money, which by no Law human or christian, they were bid, much less obliged to give. The Clergy were provoked by feeling such unhallowed usage; as the Laity were by beholding it. The Prelates thus incensed and thus encouraged, were steady in opposing the Nuntio’s Cravings; and he now whined as unsuccessfully about the Pope’s Wants, as he had before imperiously threatned in his name. He was forced therefore for the present to desist; nor had the Holy-man any other market for money left but that of selling Benefices and the Trust of Souls to the best Bidder, who was always best qualified. Some he filled with his own and the Pope’s Minions; and a little Boy, Cousin to his Holiness, was made a Dignitary of Sarum, for the edification of that Diocese. | In this unanimous Temper of both Laity and Clergy, the King fol. 242v pinched by his Straits, called the Parliament to meet. In order to obtain a Supply, he not only took a new Oath to them to observe the Great-Charters, but publickly and formally subjected himself to be excommunicated by the Bishops (that is, to give his Soul to Satan and infernal Torments, renouncing all hopes of Heaven and Salvation) if ever he violated that Oath. What Awe or Tye can restrain the Man, whom this tremendous Imprecation cannot restrain? Henry the third had before undergone one as awful, without regarding it, or having ever intended to regard it. In truth nothing can bind the man,

1 promised⎡ing⎤ 17 ⎡now⎤ 18 threatned ⎡before⎤ | ⎡threatned⎤ 19 ⎡name⎤ 33

Innocent IV (born Sinibaldo Fieschi), pope from 1243 until his death in 1254.

The Reign of Henry III

385

who has faith in absolution; an ensnaring Device, tempting good men to be wicked, and wicked men to be worse. How well he observed the present Covenant and Curse, will soon appear. By it however he procured an Aid from the Parliament. It is likely they presumed, that he had seen his past Courses to have been very foolish as well as very wicked; and that though virtue did not reclaim him, ease and self interest would. It is most certain that in all his violent and faithless Dealings, he had never failed to bring misery and distress upon himself, as well as upon the Public and upon particular r fol. 243 Persons. But he was one of those | whom no experience can teach, no adversity reclaim. He might else have seen, that by pursuing power without Bounds, he had nigh lost all Power; and that though he took money without Law and Consent, he was ever in want of money: For, he spent it as wantonly as he got it, trusting still to the same Ways of getting more; ways which were never certain, because they were always odious: Whereas had he depended only upon certain Supplies, he must have brought his Expences within certain Bounds. Nor could he have then failed of such Supplies from his People, when he had used them well; since they granted him several, after much and heavy Oppression. About this Time Henry felt the just Effects of his treacherous dealings with poor Griffin the Welsh Prince, to whom he had pledged his faith to assist him, then most perfidiously held him a Prisoner in the Tower. Griffin broke his neck trying to escape thence. His Brother David having then no Rival to apprehend, regarded Henry as little as Henry had his own honour; so little that he made irruptions and committed ravages upon the Territories of England, with no resistance from the King, and always with Success against fol. 243v that of the Inhabitants themselves. Alexander the Scottish | King too, conscious with whom he had to deal, withdrew his Homage for the Lands holden of the English Crown: A slight which so animated the English Barons, that Henry could not avoid arming but made little use of his Army, however superior to the Scots, who relying on his poor and unwarlike spirit, were come nowise equal to the Encounter. Alexander for all this, knew how to come off with safety: He offered to renew his Homage: Henry gladly embraced the offer, 9 ⎡upon3⎤ 26 ⎡own⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

386

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

without any other advantage gained from such an opportunity and so much strength. Even after this wretched step, he might have obliged his People, and got some Credit to himself by trying his Forces against the hostile Welsh, every day robbing them and insulting the Government. This therefore was a necessary measure and he was advised to it. But Henry who could only invite War, but make none, discharged his Forces; and, under this fresh reproach, called a Parliament and asked money. He escaped well to meet only with a refusal. What he could not procure from the Parliament he forced from the City, a large Sum, under a pretence worse than none, that some offender or other had taken shelter there. If this were guilt he might at any time contrive | such Guilt, and thus pay himself for his shrewd Policy. fol. 244r The Prince of Wales, when he saw such an armament against Scotland, inferred what must seem obvious to the most ordinary discernment, that he was destined to be the next Victim. Of this he was so confident, that he made a Tender of Vassalage and a Tribute to the Pope, if the Pope would absolve him from those to the King, which he alledged to have been forced. The Pope, as greedy as he was of money and power, yet affecting to try before he would decide, commissioned a couple of Abbots, both Welshmen, to examine the Complaints of the Prince of Wales, and if they appeared to be well grounded then to absolve him from all Ties of Oath and Tribute. Before these two small Judges the King of England was, without ceremony, summoned to appear. Was it strange that such incredible Insolence should enrage the English Nation? Even the King was in a passion, yet not the more trusted by the Barons, with the measures which they were then concerting for defeating the monstrous usurpations of the Pope, who meddled in all things, and assumed universal Sovereignty, with less colour for Power and Rents than one of the Planets, and without a claim to so much reverence, or indeed to any in comparison | of these vast and glorious Luminaries. Was not the fol. 244v Worship paid to the sublime Orbs of Mars or Jupiter, much more excusable than that paid to a little perishable human Creature, meanly deceiving for power, groveling after Gain, profaning the divine Being by aping him, and deriding him by claiming his Attributes?

The Reign of Henry III

387

The Barons were so taken up with their Counsels against the Pope, who was literally the common Enemy of Christendom and of Mankind, that the war against Wales proceeded but slowly, and was indeed comparitively but of little moment. England was in truth stripped by Rome; and, as the Rapine was as incessant as merciless, all the money of the Kingdom was carried thither. The Task was the harder, as they durst neither confide in the King nor in the Clergy. They saw their Monarch to be no better than the Pope’s man; and the Clergy, though they disliked the Pope’s Demands, and wanted assistance against his Oppressions, yet would never give theirs when the Pope’s Authority, from whence they drew support to their own, was attacked and seemed in danger. The Barons therefore resolving to act independently, as well as vigorously, gave Orders to the Wardens of the Ports to stop all Bulls and Mandates from Rome. Sevfol. 245r eral | Bulls were thus stopped, all for money on many pretences. The Nuntio complained to the King: The King ordered them to be restored. But the remonstrances of the Lords satisfied him how much he wronged his People, how much he suffered himself, by the perpetual Rapine of the Popes here, where, as only one instance of it, the Revenue of the Italian Ecclesiasticks was greater than the Revenue of the Crown. Henry, though convinced, would not venture to anger the Pope, thought to save himself and his Subjects; yet pretended not to obstruct the Barons. They sent a Gentleman to the Nuntio, commanding him forthwith to depart the Kingdom: The Gentleman added that he spoke the sense of the whole Nation, and if, said he to the Nuntio, who was very sorry to obey, ‘you stay two Days more in England, you shall be certainly cut in pieces’. The Nuntio complained to the King: The King unable to protect him, granted him a Passport. The Wrath and arrogant Stile of the Pope upon a Blow so unexpected, were remarkable, ‘that he must make peace with the Emperor: When the great Dragon was once appeased, he should the sooner crush the smaller Serpents’.

15 the ⎡for⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

388

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

This was not all the Pope’s mortification | from the Barons. They fol. 245v sent Embassadors and a Letter to the General Council at Lyons.34 The Pope who was there, found the Letter very grievous, indeed unanswerable; for he replied nothing. Nor less grievous to him was what followed, a Speech from one of the Embassadors, representing the lawless Encroachments of the Court of Rome, and the intollerable distresses from thence to this Nation. He specified the Tribute granted by King John to the Holy See; and denied that the King could render the Kingdom tributary. That Grant therefore, as ’twas made without the Concurrence of the Barons was of itself void. He exposed the endless abuses and mischiefs from a common Clause in all the Bulls from Rome, annulling all Rights and Immunities whatsoever that were found to contradict the Letter and meaning of such Bulls. These Bulls therefore, he said, swallowed up at once all ecclesiastical Claims, Priviledges and Advantages, those of Bishops, Monastries, and of all Patrons, of whatsoever sort. He then made a detail of the constant and merciless Demands, Rapine and Oppressions by the Pope’s Ministers whether Legates or Nuntios. The Ambassadors waited in vain for an Answer. That the Pope reserved ’till they were | gone; and then gave none. However as this fol. 246r Father of Christendom would seem to take some notice of such a long and heavy Charge of most unchristian practices, he passed two Bulls, one giving the Patrons, what they had ever possessed ’till he robbed them of it, a power to present whom they pleased. The other graciously permitted, that when an Italian died in a Benefice or quitted it, another Italian should not succeed to it for that time. Though these two Bulls never had any operation, nor were intended to have; nor could have, as long as he persisted in his dispensing power; yet before the Council, but in the absence of the Embassadors, he claimed great merit from such nominal relief and mock concessions; nay, as a manifestation of his contempt of the Embassy and all the complaints accompanying it, upon the breaking up of the Council,

7 the⎡is⎤ 34

At the time Rome was under siege by Emperor Frederick II, so Pope Innocent IV used the First Council of Lyons (1245) to excommunicate and depose him. The council also ordered a new crusade (the Seventh), under the command of Louis, to reconquer the Holy Land.

The Reign of Henry III

389

he commanded the English Bishops by express Letters, on pain of Excommunication, to confirm under their hands and Seals King John’s scandalous Grant of annual Tribute to Himself. The Bishops submitted; and, to obey the Pope, committed High-Treason against the State. Their behaviour confirms what I have before observed, and what the Barons knew, how little they were to be trusted in any Scheme or fol. 246v combination for | effectually disabling him from hurting even themselves, since if he could not hurt them, he could not assist and protect them. They therefore were not Subjects to the Crown of England, but to the triple Crown; and, for the interest of it, sacrificed the Crown of England. ’Twas no defence, that they sometimes did it with reluctancy: So, often, does a Rebel, when he makes war upon his Country. No Government ought to suffer in it any Characters or Conditions of men inconsistent with its Freedom and Independency; without which it ought not to be called Government. But I have spoke to this point elsewhere. Let me just add, that the King’s displeasure towards the Pope, upon this occasion, if ever it was real, soon vanished, and he quickly resumed his unnatural Duty to His Sovereign; I need not say spiritual sovereign; for the Pontiff was the other too. The tameness of the Clergy to Rome had a natural consequence there, to draw upon themselves more and heavier impositions from thence. The Pope was so sure of their acquiescence, that at this very time, even during his quarrel with the Nation, he made new exactions upon them, more rigorous and unbearable than any before fol. 247r them. Though the Barons were justly provoked to yield them no | assistance, after their late act of enmity to their Country, by owning it, under their hands, to be the Pope’s; yet as his present Depredations upon the Ecclesiasticks, raised in themselves a new alarm of his insolence and general Tyranny, they came to a noble Resolution in Parliament, to draw up a summary of the Nation’s Grievances from Rome, by way of a Letter to the Pope, signed by the King, Barons and Bishops, and in their names, to demand satisfaction. The Bishops, we see, could agree to remonstrances in favour of themselves.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

7 ⎡Scheme or⎤ 11 this Crown ⎡it⎤ | sacrificed] that of 12 other ⎡Crown of England⎤ 19 to] ⎡[[...]]⎤ | hHis 20 ⎡not⎤ 26 vrigorous 35 ⎡we see,⎤

390

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

The Grievances exhibited in the Letter were, ‘great contributions from the Clergy, against the Laws of the Realm; Patrons deprived of their Presentations; the intrusion of Foreigners, ignorant of the English Language, and their carrying away the English money; Pensions exacted from Churches; Benefices monopolized by Non-resident Italians; with the great expence to English Ecclesiasticks, of going to Rome and of procuring investitures there: Many Churches filled with Foreigners, who practised no Alms, nor Hospitality; no Preaching in them; the Cure of Souls neglected: Finally, the dispensing Clause in the Pope’s Bull, subversive of all the Rights, Jurisdictions, and good Custom in the Church and Kingdom’. | The Pope, always sure of managing and intimidating the King fol. 247v and the Clergy, therefore the less fearing the Barons, was so far from being awed by this important Letter, that laying or pretending to lay the blame of procuring it intirely upon the Bishops, as if They had extorted it from the King and the Lords; he doomed them to more grievous Burdens than ever, and afflicted them with very singular exactions. He forced them now to what they had refused before, the signing of the sentence of excommunication against the Emperor, as also to furnish a number of men well equipped with horses and arms, to serve against that Prince, and to maintain them in that service for a Year. His holiness, moreover, to manifest his contempt of the late crying complaints, and of the whole Nation, with all the powers in it, made a new and extraordinary Claim, ‘to administer to the Goods of all Ecclesiasticks dying intestate’. What could be higher Acts of Sovereignty, than thus to tax and arm and command the Subject? And were not the Bishops Rebels to the Crown, in thus submitting to the power of a Usurper? To these imperious injunctions and to such rapacious Demands the King at first made some opposition, but was threatned with excommunication, and submitted. The Pope finding all opposition to fly before him, redoubled his Efforts for Dominion and Treasure, and boldly required from every residing Clergyman one Third of his | Moveables, and one half from all Non-Residents. His own Will fol. 248r served him for authority, and his Wants for the imperial War, for a

7 filled] with 22 And ⎡His holiness, moreover,⎤ 23 it,] He 25 – 28 ⎤ What ... Usurper?⎤ 25 – 26 Sovereignty,] than

The Reign of Henry III

391

Pretence to fleece Christendom, England worse than any other Part of it. Such a lucrative War, however bloody, could not be too carefully prolonged by the Vicar of the God of Peace. The Bishop of London, appointed the Pope’s Commissary on this occasion, and armed with power of excommunication and suspension, had assembled some other Bishops to concert the method of levying this amazing extortion. For, the Bishops must still submit to be the Pope’s Agents in his worst outrages and tyranny. But the King at this juncture relieved them from the godless and inhuman Task, by an Order, ‘not to concur in the Exaction’. The same kingly spirit shewn against all papal impositions, would have saved him and his Kingdom from a Sea of misery and disgrace. The Pope, when he found that he could not frighten the King, was himself so affrighted as to drop his demands. The Bishops who considered themselves as each a Pope in his own Diocese, claiming power there as absolute as his at Rome, found it necessary to usurp civil power in Order to exert the Spiritual: a fol. 248v strange conjunction, fatal to religion and society, | but very dear to most Churchmen, indeed necessary to all Churchmen, who aim at convincing and saving rational Souls by power and coercion; but always rejected by such as only seek the Good of Souls, without proffit to themselves, and are free from ambition and enthusiasm. Mathew Paris, and Rapin from him, mention a Bishop of Lincoln, who possessed with this spirit of power, at that time made an exact Inquisition into the Life and most minute Actions of every Individual in his Diocese.35 A Practice tending directly to Tyranny, as it brings all under the power of one, who may easily gratify all his worst Passions under pious names, cover his rage with the title of zeal, his cruelty with that of Correction, his avarice with that of the Rights of the Church; and thus becomes a dread master over the persons and purses of mankind. All the great and lasting calamities that have ever afflicted the world, and continue to afflict it, Wars, Oppression, Chains, mutual Hate, Desolation and Slaughter, have been introduced by the Fairest

23 out of ⎡from⎤ 28 ⎡rage with the title of⎤ 35

Robert Grosseteste (c. 1175–1253).

5

10

15

20

25

30

392

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

Appearances, those of General Good, General Benevolence and Protection. What can be more plausible, what more engaging, than the sound and theory of Government, and the name and propagation of religion, the one intended to secure the persons and properties, the other to save the Souls of | men? Yet who have ever destroyed Lives fol. 249r and Fortunes faster or so fast; who have ever misled, corrupted and endangered human Souls more, or so much, as Governors and Teachers? Thus rose the Pope, thus the Inquisition, and all the shocking machinery of Popery. What appears more harmless than to confess our Sins to a Holy-man? What more comforting than to be absolved by him from all the dreadful consequences of Sin? Yet these two Articles implicitely admitted, and improved to their full Height by self interest and craft, are engines strong enough to enslave the world, to engross all the power and property in it. Doubtless the Bishop of Lincoln, in this Scheme of papal Power to himself (for, all Schemes of power in Religion are Papal) meant to push these two engines to their proper length. But here too the King interposed, and crushed this clerical attempt to enslave the Laity. The Pope, though checked in some of his late exactions, was so far from forbearing any more, that he was daily devising new; as if he meant to make himself amends for his disappointments. The more the Clergy struggled against such, the more he repeated such, on purpose to awe them into dumb acquiescence. A new Legate, come upon the old Errand, demands or rather commands a large Donative from all the Prelates, taxing Particulars at so much a head. Mathew Paris | says, the Bishop of Lincoln was taxed at six thousand Marks: fol. 249v A very grievous Present! For, the Legate modestly gave it that name. We here see the Contradiction between names and things in the papal Stile. The Pope, who found it expedient to humour the King, and how easily he could do it; for these substantial spoils and Rents from his Subjects, granted him a Shadow, ‘that no Italian Ecclesiastic of any quality, should be preferred in England without the King’s consent’: Which he knew he could gain when he pleased, or save himself the trouble of asking, by exercising his dispensing power, which he might trust the King would bear. For, Henry, as if he had

3 ⎡name and⎤ 4 both ⎡the one⎤ 4 – 5 and ⎡the other⎤ 16 ⎡to2⎤ 28 [[...]] ⎡Contradiction⎤ 31 | Italian Ecclesiastic |

The Reign of Henry III

393

done wrong in his late interposition for his Subjects against their Spoiler the Pope, (almost the only Kingly action of his Life!) was again relapsed into Vassalage, and countenanced papal Rapine as much as ever, as if he had studied more and more to incense all men especially the most powerfull men, not only by oppressing them himself, but by surrendering them to a foreign Oppressor. Under all this public Indignation, Henry, who was both the cause and the object of it, was hardened enough to assemble the Parliament and ask money, without having observed one Tittle of all his strong, sacred and awful engagements upon receiving the last Supfol. 250r ply. | What answer could be expected from the Parliament but the contemptuous and bitter one which they gave him? ‘How could he, they said, after eternal falsifications on his part, demand Bounty and compliance on theirs? Foreigners were the only objects of all his Favours, of all his Regards, Liberality and Grants: His Subjects were scorned, their Trade oppressed, their Merchants squeezed; both loaded with lawless impositions: Churches kept vacant; their Revenues misapplied: All the great Offices of State, and Trust and Council, bestowed on Persons unqualified: The Parliament his Great Council, not only never trusted, but despised’. Henry by the asperity of this Reply, seeing their Temper, which he greatly feared, and no hopes of money, which he greatly and only wanted, prorogued them for some months. The interval was employed by his favorites, all Foreigners, enemies to his People, consequently to him, in embittering him against them. From the instigation of these Parricides he borrowed courage to reproach the Barons in their Turn, as soon as he met them again in Parliament, ‘with exacting from him such measures as they would not submit to themselves. They were Masters in their own Family; so would he be in his Kingdom, and employ and change his Servants as they did theirs, according to his pleasure. For he was v fol. 250 King, and it was the | Duty of them all to obey him’. A foolish high Tone, the bounce of a little Heart, swelling with great Pride, and borrowed vigour! His Prompters, whether from ignorance or deceitfulness, taught him not the wide difference between private Property and public Trust, the first in the disposal of the Owner; the other always accountable. No Trust can be taken, 8 ⎡of it,⎤ 11 ⎡from the Parliament⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

394

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

without being given, and whenever it is given, the Gift is conditional. Taking it where ’tis not given, is violence and usurpation. Power over all is limited to the Good of all, not of him only who has it, but of them over whom he has it. Henry received his under certain restrictions, and had often sworn to observe them. The power and the condition of the power, were inseparable; and to declare that he would not rule England according to the English Laws, was disowning his only Title to the Kingdom. Why they took him not at his word, and obliged him not to keep it; why they had borne him so long and still bore him, I shall explain in another Place. Yet after this Declaration, as foolish as arrogant, Henry demanded a Supply for a War, which he neither intended, nor dared to commence, for the Recovery of the French Provinces. To the Articles for redress of public Grievances, so heavy and so many, he answered only in unmeaning and genfol. 251r eral | Words. The Parliament who knew him too well to fear him, any more than to love him; and now had no Hopes of any good from him, heard this ridiculous ill-timed Rant, with fresh indignation; and told him in a strain as strenuous as his own, but much more solid, ‘that since he would not comply with their just complaints, neither would they with his unreasonable Demands. They were not so blind to be misled by the Cry of a fictitious War, only to enrich Foreigners by beggaring themselves’. They had found how unfit he was to undertake any war; and, besides his other signal disqualifications, they knew he durst venture upon none with France, out of his unmanly fear of the Pope, who with his usual modesty, had forbid all Princes and Powers from molesting the Dominions of the French King during his expedition into the Holy-Land; a frantic as well as a fatal adventure, which cost him his Liberty, as it did his Kingdom many Lives and mighty Sums. But what availed the Calamities of all Christendom, so the Pope, who was the first Author of them, gained and throve by them? He had misled that poor King, naturally weak and bewitched with Bigotry, to that mad undertaking, then ruined both, by taking money to excuse his Followers from going with

9 ⎡they⎤ 22 the] fictitious | ⎡fictitious⎤

The Reign of Henry III

395

fol. 251v him. | In compensation for all, Lewis was, many Years afterwards,

sainted.36 Henry who was always provoking, yet always fearing the Barons, and now apprehended higher proceedings from so high a Ferment, for his own security dissolved the Parliament. But as he only saw present danger, and not danger at a distance, instead of removing, he was constantly increasing it, without perceiving that he did so. As he had for ever deceived, lately insulted, now dissolved the Parliament, and inflamed, instead of gratifying them; small sagacity in himself, or a little honest information from his Counsellors, had they either loved him or regarded the Public, might have convinced him, how much he must have added to popular disaffection, and what dreadful consequences popular disaffection, raised so high, might produce. Henry, who thought that by parting with the Parliament he had redeemed his own safety, incurring fresh hate and peril by persevering in his old courses of extortion and oppression. His extreme indigence made him contemptible: The Cause of it, his prodigality to Foreigners and Parricides, made his Reign odious; and his violent and endless depredations made it detestable. He was fain to sell his fol. 252r plate and jewels, but fell into violent wrath with | all the Purchasers, chiefly Londoners, because they had often pleaded poverty in answer to his lawless Demands. To mortify them therefore, by cramping their Trade, he established a Fair in Westminster, and forbid all Traffic in London, whilst it lasted, as it did almost three Weeks. The Traders there apply to him with Complaints, which he answered by new oppressions, and extorted from them great Presents to enable him to keep his Christmass. Shortly after Christmas, he made another arbitrary demand upon them, and they were forced to soften him with a Supply, too small however for his Wants. Thus he had recourse to another shift, to borrow of all his Subjects capable of lending, Lords, Bishops, Abbots and substantial Citizens, who having all felt, and therefore all hating his oppressions, were disposed to complement him with as little bounty as they owed

5

10

15

20

25

30

16 courses] [[...]] 36

The Seventh Crusade (1248–54), led by Louis IX of France, was a disaster. The king himself was taken prisoner at the Battle of Fariskur (6 April 1250), where his army was wiped out.

396

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

him favour. It was then no wonder that they eluded the Loan. Under this Disappointment he applied to them personally, with the meanest supplications, in the Stile of an Alms-man. From the small Bounty which he received from the Monastry of Saint Alban, something under forty pounds, we may presume what poor Pittances he had from particular Persons. From the most part he had flat Denials: Few pitied him: None believed his best | argument, or cared for it, fol. 252v had it been true, the necessity of a War with France. All sorts pleaded poverty, upon too much Ground, from his misrule and so many depredations both by Him and the Pope. To such want and meanness and scorn was he reduced by an infatuation for unbounded grandeur and power and submission. Had he observed the Laws, he might have ruled in safety: Had he been counselled by his Parliament, he might have rolled in plenty: Had he obliged his People he would have reaped Loyalty, Zeal and Glory. He who had never shewed an English Heart, could not expect the Hearts of the English. He loved Foreigners, beggared Himself for Them, and oppressed his People for them. Then, when he has forfeited all Credit, wasted all his Treasure, and has no resource left but to beg of his people, he begs in vain, begs for Help where he had never shewed mercy, for bounty and support where he had always denied Justice. In these miserable circumstances and want of money, he conceived a project which required a great deal, yet produced none. It was a vow to carry an Army into Palestine; a pious Lunacy still much in Fashion, ruinous to Christian Princes | and States, but gainful to fol. 253r the Pope; who, as he had drawn all his importance from their Folly, proffited by their Losses, and gathered strength from their weakness. During that time of dismal darkness, men had so intirely renounced their Senses as to believe that the All-Wise Author of universal nature sometimes conveyed Sanctity into soil, and set his heart particularly upon the Mountains and Desarts of Judæa: And as the Pope had always most power when the People had least sense, he found it easie to send his enchanted Dupes in swarms to molest the East, where both He and They were only Intruders, and had no more to do with the Saracens there, than the Saracens had with them here.

14 ru⎡ol⎤led

The Reign of Henry III

397

But he wanted to make his fairy Sway universal, and found Hosts of Bigots, who thought themselves Christians, ready to travel, suffer, fight and perish for this antichristian Impostor. What was Palestine to them? What was the Pope to the Saracens? Had they, because they were called Christians any more pretence to invade the Mahometans, than the Apostles had to use Arms and Violence against the Pagans? Did Christ or his Apostles leave any Commission, any Orders to their future Followers, real or pretended, to lay Judæa desolate, because the ground was holy, and to kill or exterminate the inhabitv fol. 253 ants for not | being so holy as the ground? Or were these papal Armies proper Instruments to convert them; Armies far more immoral, more licentious, more debauched and scandalous than the Saracens? Neither had Mahometanism, with all its extravagancies, anything so extravagant either in its Tenets or Practice, as the papal Religion had; a Religion which not only made war upon human understanding and the meek Religion of Jesus, but had extinguished both, before it made war upon the Saracens. Indeed of all Sects under the Sun, none holds such dreadful, such shocking Doctrines: And ’tis impossible to leave any of these Sects for Popery, be it what Sect it will, without changing for the worse. No Sect even maintained such antipathy to sense, so debased the Deity, or so invaded the divine prerogative; none ever fired the Passions of its Professors with so much fury; none ever imbrued their hands in so much blood; none ever destroyed so many Myriads of men, or defaced the creation so much: All of them put together never did. Surely that Sect which does most mischief in the World, is the worst of all Sects. It avails not that a Sect which holds many pernicious Tenets, holds also many Good, if the former only, or chiefly prevail. What does it signify to maintain, that a good Life is necesfol. 254r sary to salvation, when it | admits too that such as lead the worst may be saved for a Fee; and that the best cannot, if they do but err against notions and authority, even with reason and conscience on their side? Henry proposed this mad expedition, without any Intention to make it; not for want of Bigotry, but for want of courage and money, which he hoped to get by pretending to make it. He thought that the 31 ⎡do⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

398

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

Parliament durst not deny him a Supply for a purpose so popular and holy; or at least that this holy purpose would justify any violent methods to force a Supply from the People, though the Parliament would grant him none: And, when his present Wants were removed, he would be easily disengaged from his vow by a little underhand Collusion with the Pope. In the meanwhile, it proved, like almost all Henry’s projects, as deceitful in him, so grievous to his Subjects. For those of all Ranks took the same vow and prepared to follow him, many Lords, more Knights, Gentlemen in great numbers, common men without number; all so impatient that when they saw the King still unprepared, still delaying, they attempted to go without him, but at his request were forbid by the Pope under pain of Excommunication. Thus all their large expences were sunk and abortive; and, for want of their expected assistance, the French | King and his Army fol. 254v exposed to captivity and slaughter amongst the superior Forces of the Saracens in the East. Such regard had the King, taught by the Pope for his credit and vows: In such vileness did his Teacher hold the persons, the honour and even the Crowns of Kings, with the Fortunes, Liberty and Lives of men! The conduct of his Holiness towards the Emperor is yet a more remarkable Instance of his regard to charity and truth, with his fear of God, and tenderness to human Souls: He excommunicated that Prince twice, for contradictory reasons, first, for not hastning his Expedition into the Holy Land, secondly, for making too much haste. What I have mentioned before was a common proceeding of his, to sollicit People to such Expeditions, nay to threaten to damn them if they refused; then to take money, nay force them to give it on pain of damnation, in order to be excused. So that they were first obliged to vow, that is, to swear, then, not to keep their Oath: He would absolve them from that, but must be paid for his absolution. Such was the Justice and Humility, such the Infallibility and Bowels of this Father of Christendom, this unerring Guide, this faithful Servant of Servants. Henry, who after all had no Aid from the | Parliament, nor would fol. 255r venture to ask it, yet was resolved to have it some where, had recourse as always to extortion and spoil; and, by a lawless Commis-

12 – 13 Excommunication],. ⎡Thus⎤ 13 ⎡were⎤

The Reign of Henry III

399

sion brutally executed, got what was not his due, as well as what was, a round sum and the Curses of his People: It was levied upon them as penalties for having broken no Law, or rather for observing Magna Charta and trusting to the King’s Oath; as by these he had disavowed and relinquished all the old arbitrary Claims in the Forrests. He now arbitrarily resumes all those Claims; and general ruin follows the resumption. Numbers are beggared, many of them of the first Quality, condemned, fined, and their Estates seized, for the high offence of killing a Fox or a Hare, though upon the High-way. Many others, not criminals that way, are treated as such for pitying them, and put in Durance for whispering discontents against such crying Cruelties. The bare exercise of Tyranny not satisfying Henry, unless he likewise declared himself a Tyrant, he assumed a power in Form to dispense with himself from performing any Acts of Justice, however settled and sacred; to revoke at pleasure whatever Justice he had done; to invalidate all Regulations in Law and Matters of property by opposite Regulations, and to abolish all Grants, Securities fol. 255v and | Priviledges whatsoever. An Order or Instrument from the King, signed by himself, justly obtained, deliberately executed, however important in itself, however agreeable to Law, inferred no certain Effect or Security to those who had it, whilst he claimed a Prerogative to reverse it when he listed; a Prerogative of not keeping his Faith with his Subjects, and therefore a Warning to Them, to repose no Trust in Him. When they could depend upon nothing from Him, both he and they might begin to fear one another. The denial of Justice is naturally returned with the decay of Duty; and when they had once lost Hope, he was soon like to lose their Allegiance. This usurped Prerogative, called the King’s Non-obstante, was to set him loose from all restraints; to enable him to reverse Acts of Justice when he had done them; and to proceed according to his Will, notwithstanding that it was contrary to honour and engage-

27 they were ⎡he was⎤ 30 lo⎡o⎤se

5

10

15

20

25

30

400

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

ments.37 He interposed in processes at Law for considerable Estates; now, at the request of the prosecuted, forbidding the prosecutor to proceed; then at the entreaty of the latter, permitting him to go on, when the former was absent and unprepared. It was thus that he once favored a Baron against a Bishop, after he had first favored the Bishop against the | Baron: As if it had been a branch of Reigning, to fol. 256r be inconsistent and partial, to wanton with Justice and to shew his people that he had none. This unhallowed Claim he had borrowed, where only it could be borrowed, from the Pope, who always trod under foot every obstacle to his interest and authority, and by a dispensing Clause in his Bulls, made void all the Ties of Morality and Nature: So just cause had an English Judge to lament, that ‘the civil Courts were corrupted in imitation of the Ecclesiastical, and from that fountain all the Streams were poysoned’. Henry, besides his natural Inclinations, had at this time an inducement more than usual to despise Law and his People, from the success of De Montfort, Earl of Leicester against his Rebel Subjects in Gascony; an Event whence he hoped to awe his English Subjects into unlimited patience under the basest usage. So far was he from the humane and generous Policy of Princes truly great, who make mercy and moderation the measure of their power and success. Henry’s method of displaying his prosperity, was to insult his People, and multiply their Grievances. One of their greatest was his profuseness to Foreigners at Their expence. He now caressed, and enriched, and exalted Strangers more than ever, to convince the Natives how much he despised them and their Complaints. | Men cannot infer from what is past, what will certainly follow, fol. 256v and are often deceived by presuming to know. Henry had as little address in improving the favours of Fortune, as in courting them. By provoking the Earl of Leicester he will suffer more than he had gained by the Earl’s victory. That Earl was accused by Deputies from Guienne of very high and imperious proceedings against men of

2 ⎡the3⎤ 18 Gascogney 37 In his commentary on a decretal Pope Innocent III had sent to the Bishop of Ceneda, Innocent IV argued that if a prince issued a rescript forbidding, in contravention to the law, a litigant from presenting a law suit, that rescript was invalid unless it contained a clause that acknowledged the legal objections to a provision, but overrode them.

The Reign of Henry III

401

principal Note there. The King encouraged them, more from caprice than justice; for the Earl made a strong and unanswerable defence. As he was incensed at the King’s fickleness and sudden enmity, he magnified his own Services, and even called upon the King for the performance of his Royal Promise in rewarding him suitably. The King called him Traitor: The Earl said the King lied. The King’s resentment was not so strong as his Fear. He durst not punish the Earl, declared himself reconciled, and again employed him.38 He was indeed a Man of Parts and Spirit and of very considerable reputation as a Soldier. In the late attack upon him, he applied with success to the great Lords, and gained them, as also Prince Richard. Whilst he was thus popular and thus protected, acquitted by the Peers, forgiven by the King, the unsteady, unlucky King would needs try him again, fol. 257r and therefore assembles the | Barons. The Barons again acquit him and even charge the King with doing him notable Injustice, in depriving him of his Government and conferring it, before his Term legally expired, upon Prince Edward. The King was frightened, and in great haste dismissed them; yet far from taking any measure to appease and recover them, he went on with blind obstinacy to give them daily and fresh provocations, by his mad partiality and bounties to Foreigners. They, upon whose Counsels only he relied, and whose only Councels pointed at their own interest, and tended directly to disgrace and weaken the King, taught him to trust to a Maxim, which, had it been practicable, would have still debased him more and in effect unkinged him; ‘that whilst he was supported by the Pope, he might defy his Subjects’. It was indeed defying his Subjects as well as demeaning himself, to

5

10

15

20

25

1 ⎡them⎤ 24 ⎡him⎤ 25 ⎡still⎤ 38 In 1248, Simon de Montfort yielded to King Henry’s repeated requests to serve as governor in the unsettled Duchy of Gascony. However, the rigour with which he applied himself to the task sparked bitter complaints. Henry responded to the outcry by ordering an official inquiry, and though Simon was formally cleared of the charges of oppression, his accounts were disputed by Henry, and Simon retired to France in disgust in 1252. The French nobles offered him the regency of the kingdom, which had been vacated by the death of Queen Blanche of Castile, but he preferred to make his peace with Henry and to go back to dealing with the unrest in Gascony. However, their reconciliation was short-lived, and in the Parliament of 1254, Simon was the leader of opposition to the granting of a subsidy.

402

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

allow the Pope any influence at all either over himself or them. But to depend upon the Pope against his People, was declaring himself a Slave to the Pope and an Enemy to his People. Thus between his foreign Favorites, who were his domestic Leaders, and the Pope, who was his foreign Master, he was constantly drained, cheated and imperiously abused, always craving, always poor, takes all, yet has | nothing; and by giving all, wants every thing; aims at all power, fol. 257v and uses none, but leaves it all to others who use it ill. The wealth of the Kingdom was swallowed up by Foreigners, who enjoyed more by two thirds than the Revenue of the Crown: Yet that was a less proportion than what the power of the Pope here bore to the power of the Crown. His fondness for his Favorites, or more properly his craziness towards them, was such that one of them, a Priest, enjoyed no less than seven hundred spiritual preferments at one time. I question whether the Heir to the Crown then possessed such large Rents. Henry still continued to talk of his Journey to the Holy Land, for the same reason; for he still wanted money. From the Parliament he was not vain enough, with all his Folly, to hope for any; but trusting to the Pope’s power over the Clergy he asked them, and in spite of the Pope’s order, was denied by them. I am amazed at so much resolution in the Clergy. The Pope at the King’s request, commanded all Ecclesiasticks whatsoever to assist the King with a full tenth of their Revenues for three Years, as an Aid for the Recovery of Palestine. The King had gained some Prelates, particularly his Brother, Bishop of Winchester: But the far | greater part refused, and even petitioned fol. 258r him, ‘to drop his Demand, as he tendered his Salvation’. This free warning enraged the King; and for their implicite menaces he returned them very plain ones, for daring to oppose both their Sovereigns, Himself and the Pope, with the universal Church and Christ himself. A man that is despised threatens in vain. The Clergy who were without any reverence for the King, treated him not only without Ceremony, but with bitter acrimony and Reproaches for all the Rapine, Tyranny and Perjury of his Reign; nor vouchsafed to stay for his answer, but broke up. Henry who often shewed most resentment when he had no cause, as often shewed none when he was most insulted. He now strove, by wheedling and caresses, to gain over

35 ⎡most⎤

The Reign of Henry III

403

some particular opposing Prelates, but with no Success. They considered Him as unreclaimable, and his condition, like his Character, as forlorn; and were as surly to him, as he was supplicant to them. To his chief argument, the Holy-Land, they opposed the madness of the attempt, the tragical Defeat of the French Army there, and the Captivity of their King amongst the Saracens. Henry, who had taught all his Subjects, by his want of regard for them, to shew him none, might now see what his example had fol. 258v taught them, how | thoroughly they all disregarded him. Yet still he takes no method to recover them but every method to imbitter them. Foreigners are ever his darlings; false dealings and violent Councels are ever his choice: Impotence, Contempt, and dishonour are the natural Fruits of all. A King, who, after repeated oppressions will administer no relief, does but force the oppressed upon finding it. Henry had broken all Oaths, all Laws abused, deceived and spoiled all sorts of men, Barons, Clergy and Commonalty, robbed the Citizens, and strove to starve the City. For such a course of Iniquities and Misrule all sorts hate him, yet have borne him for above thirty years, and still bear him. Popular discontents are generally more talkative and loud, than active and forward. Henry who had long heard these, thought they could not hurt him, because they had not, and goes on defying them till they do. The Kingdom had suffered so extremely by its struggles against the Tyranny of the late Reigns, that the leading men were willing to try any redress before the last, and all expedients rather than any desperate one. It rarely happens that violent Princes find popular Resistance upon their first Acts of violence and are hardly ever deposed for their oppressions, till they have manifested a settled intention to continue fol. 259r them: As they generally oppress without cause, their | Subjects seldom oppose, much more seldom remove them, without ample temptation and excuse. History scarce affords an instance of a Tyrant destroyed for one Instance of tyranny, unless by private conspiracy and assassination; and against these the best Princes are not secure: Tyranny, though never secure, is too seldom punished; and the impunity of any Tyrant serves to multiply Tyrants, more than their ill fate discourages Tyranny. Henry the third who had done what all 9 th⎡o⎤roughly 13 a ⎡all. A⎤ 18 hated 33 secure];:

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

404

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

Tyrants do, and worse than many Tyrants had done, as many of them had more generosity, better sentiments and higher honour, was doubtless a Tyrant, if any one vested with public Trust for the benefit of all, and turning it to the hurt and ruin of all, can be a Tyrant. Yet for many Years and during a torrent of unrelenting violence towards his People, he found none from them; nothing worse than complaints and remonstrances, as terrible as weapons to a wise prince, but of no other force with him than to offend him; at best, to make him repeat false engagements, yet think himself safe in breaking them. It was no competent Amends, though some consolation to his People, to see him avenge them upon himself, by the miserable figure which he made, and the contemptible Character which he bore. No Prince can take from his Subjects | by force so much as they fol. 259v can give him by consent: His unjust Supplies prove almost always insufficient; and will certainly prove so, if they be continued. Their Industry, which produces all, is lost, when they find it fruitless to themselves; or, if they have money, they will trust it to the Earth, rather than in the hands of oppressors. In the richest arbitrary Countries, the people starve; and more treasure lies buried under ground than circulates above it. Henry with all his Shifts, with all his lawless Might and Efforts, his repeated plunder from the wretched Jews so lately and so mercilesly plundered, his extorted Loans from the Nobility and Merchants, His Alms forced from the Monastries, his scandalous Fines and endless Demands upon the Citizens, and all his Rapine on all hands; was as indigent as ever, and having wasted so much money got for feigned occasions, could find none when he had a real one, such as at this Time he had. Guienne was ready to fall into the hands of the King of Castile, in good measure by the consent of the People, who having been kept in strict obedience by the Earl of Leicester, and despising their Sovereign, when the Earl was gone, accepted a new master and took arms for him. So much did Henry suffer by the disgrace of that able Governor, | who, before his merit fol. 260r was known, had been a great Favourite, and lost all favour, when he had shewn how much he deserved it. It was necessary to save Guienne, but to no purpose to urge that necessity to the Parliament, who had been long surfeited with all

3 trusted ⎡vested⎤ 35 Gui⎡e⎤nne

The Reign of Henry III

405

Henry’s warlike adventures, especially there. Besides they could not believe truth out of his mouth. An other motive, less sincere, but more popular, was offered, the stale project of Palestine, yet one so taking, as religious Follies often are, that the Parliament, though persuaded that he had no such intention, to avoid public censure, granted him an Aid under certain restrictions, particularly that the Election to Church Dignities should be free, and in all things else that he should faithfully observe the Great Charters. He promised both to the Deputies from the Parliament. He said the Charters of their Liberties should be duly and fully executed, and owned that he had carried the Prerogative too high. He forgot not however to remind the Prelates, who were some of the Deputies, that ‘it was by that very Prerogative thus strained, that they wore their Mitres, and by no free voting. Did they at that time wish that the Votes might be free? He hoped, that in desiring him to resign his Claims of power, they fol. 260v would shew | him an example, and quit their Preferments, mostly obtained by it. He assured them that the Vacancies then should be supplied with men of Learning and Morals’. A severe rebuke to the Prelates! To the Lords he gave none; and declared to both his great readiness to redress their common Grievances. Then both confirmed their Grant of an Aid. His new engagement to observe the Charters he solemnly avowed and published in Westminster Hall, with very awful Circumstances, before a vast Assembly of all sorts; with all the Barons and Prelates each holding a lighted Taper in his hand. The King held his upon his Heart, to testify his pious and perfect consent to the dreadful Denunciation which was to ensue, an inexpiable Curse pronounced aloud by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in that great Presence, against all that should thence forward oppose the Charters or violate the Laws, or change the Constitution, directly or indirectly. The Charters were then read; and the King confirmed them, not only with his hand still upon his heart, but with these Words in his mouth; ‘so help me God, I shall inviolably observe all these things, as I am a Man, a Knight, a Christian and a King’. Then all threw down their Tapers, with this fearful Wish, ‘that whoever broke the fol. 261r Charters might be thus cast into Hell, | and thus smoak there’. 17 ⎡then⎤ 27 ensue,] [[...]] 29 ⎡the Charters⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

406

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

What could be done or invented more effectually to bind the human soul or the honour of a King? What more dreadful Penalties? What more numerous, what more interested Witnesses? What more tremendous Words? What more significant Forms? He had other Motives too, if he wanted any, to engage him to a compliance with his faith so publickly pledged; his own interest and security; the love and assistance of his people; their past indignation, and the danger of recalling it; his own past uneasiness, poverty, peril and dishonour; the ill consequences of his former deceitful Dealings with them; their generosity in passing them over; and before him a pleasing prospect of retrieving all. All these cogent considerations were too weak to bind Henry, never to be cured of his Phrenzy for power, and still more intoxicated by flattering Favorites, who railed at the Charters as inconsistent with Kingship; because the Charters disables him from depressing and spoiling his People, to enrich and exalt his Flatterers. Yet neither his phrenzy, nor his Flatterers could, at least so soon, have extinguished the awakening sense of his Oath, had he not been assured to find for a competent Sum, | an antidote at Rome against the terrors fol. 261v of conscience and perdition, in that Great Shop of Pardons and Dispensations, where every Immorality, every Impiety was professedly discharged at a certain Price! Could the All-Good God have a Church there? And was the Head of the Church there, his Vicegerent? Does the Holy Scripture, which records God’s wrath against the Heathens, exhibit any instance of profaneness so worthy of that wrath? Any thing so hideous under the name of Religion or under any name? Any Position so impious, cancelling at once all the Bounds of Religion and Society? Is it consistent with the Belief of a God and a Providence, a Wise God, a Good Providence, to believe him represented by a Being who justifies fraud and perjury, tyranny, barbarity, with whatever is most repugnant to a Divine Being? Henry trusting to what any man of common honour and honesty would have abhorred, a bargain with the Pope for discharging him from the Ties of both, as soon as the Parliament was dissolved, was falling into his old train of trampling upon the Charters. Who can depend upon the man, who depends upon the Pope? What may not, what will not that man do, who thinks that, let him do what he pleases, let him be what he will, ever so | treacherous, ever so oppress- fol. 262r

The Reign of Henry III

407

ive, ever so impious, false to his Trust, an enemy to Society, a mocker of God, he shall be absolved by the Pope, pass for a devout Son of the Church, and be received into everlasting Bliss? Nay, some such have been sainted. When the highest wickedness fares so well, who need fear to commit any? Nor would a School established in Form to teach Crimes and immoralities, be half so successful, or produce so many or so gross, as an office to cancel the blackest, or to dispence with such? What crime can be blacker, what higher defiance to heaven can be devised, than by a solemn Appeal thither, to make the Deity Partner to a diabolical fraud, thence to cheat and plunder his Creatures with impunity? Here again I ask, did the Heathen World ever know, did the most brutal Heathens ever practise Doctrines so shocking to God and Nature? And can the Christian Religion, or any Religion be said to subsist where such devilish Doctrines and Practices prevail, and only prevail under the name of Religion? The No-Religion of some gross Savages (if any be so gross as to have none) and the grossest religious Follies of all other Savages, are harmless and amiable compared to the blasphemous strains of the Pope. v Henry, bad as he was, bad as his Councellors | were, would not, fol. 262 could not, durst not, have abandoned himself to such flagitious, such scandalous and impious measures, but in assurance of countenance and authority from Rome. It is this that emboldens him to prostitute his faith and conscience, to mock God and court perdition. Under this holy encouragement he still returns to his old Courses; still his old Courses involve him in disgrace and misery. Instead of repairing to the Holy Land, he applied the Aid for that purpose, though contrary to his plighted honour, yet apparently more to his interest, in an expedition to Guienne, and succeeded there without fighting, by a Match between his Son Prince Edward and Eleanor Sister to the King of Castile.39 This incident so much in his favour, Henry always dexterous at marring his own Credit and at rejecting the kindest Overtures of Fortune, improved notably to his own dishonour, by sending to demand a fresh Aid from the Parlia-

5

10

15

20

25

30

24 Courses;] [[...]] 39

In 1254, following the estrangement of Montfort, Henry arranged with King Alfonso of Castile (1252–84) for the marriage of Alfonso’s sister (Eleanor) to Edward.

408

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

ment, as if the War still subsisted, when peace was already made. The Parliament were apprized how things were; and, to save their purses, offered him the assistance of their Persons and Fortunes, if ever any attempt of the Castilians called for it. This Deceit not succeeding, though he persisted in it, and pressed | it hard more than once, and fol. 263r his Wants still continuing, not so much from the expences of the expedition (for these the Parliament had supplied) as from his profuse Bounties to his Foreign Relations, who had cost him much more than the War; he sent over Orders to spoil the poor Jews, so often and so mercilesly spoiled. They were now again stripped and squeezed with boundless Inhumanity. What wonder that they begged leave to depart out of a Country where they were so brutally oppressed, after such mighty Sums paid by them for their protection in it? Even this their petition, so full of reason, such a call for mercy, and the effect of despair, far from procuring them this last relief, exposed them to fresh Insults, and new Depredations. What opinion could this unhappy Race entertain of this Government, which called itself Christian? With all their disbelief of the Messia, they could not but perceive how much his meek spirit and Gospel abhorred barbarities so shocking to Justice and Humanity. What therefore must they think of those who committed such? What of him who called himself the Vicar of Christ and yet warranted nay prompted all such barbarities? Henry, who always loved to triumph though he never gained a Victory, and generally ended all his Wars with signal disgrace, made his | Entry into London with great pomp and ostentation, not fol. 263v ashamed of his Wants and Waste and Deceit, nor of his late inhuman Extortions, and rather still disposed to repeat them. The City received him dutifully, and complimented him with a present of Money, the same which upon these occasions they used to make to their former Kings, and which therefore they might well judge sufficient for King Henry. He, whose opinion of himself was not of a size with his Talents, thought otherwise; and they, to content him, added another in plate, of great value. In return for all this munificence, with which he owned himself pleased, he, in a few days after, extorted from them several thousand Marks as a Fine, for no Fault, nay

19 – 20 barbarbities

The Reign of Henry III

409

against plain proof of Innocence. The Pretence was, the escape of a Murderer; who, as he was a Priest, had been assisted to make it by the Bishop’s Officers. But the City was guilty, because the King wanted their money. Henry, as if he had not hitherto incurred sufficient unpopularity and distress, increases both, and indeed forfeits all prospect of Credit and Ease, by a new snare of the Pope’s. His Holiness had always found him too ductile an Instrument ever to drop or to spare him, and now involved him in a long Train of difficulties and calamities, fol. 264r greatly to be lamented | because they affected and exhausted his People. The Pope after a long quarrel with the King of Sicily, claiming the disposal of that Kingdom, because he had cursed the King of it, made an offer of it to Henry for Edmund, his second Son; and Henry was mad enough to accept the offer, under the most forbidding and scandalous Conditions. He agreed to conquer it at his own expence, to send over a great Sum of ready money, to furnish more from time to time; nay to pay under pain of excommunication whatever Sums the Pope should borrow; without any security from the Pope to apply any of those Sums to conquer that Kingdom for Prince Edmund. The Pope thus empowered to demand, had never done demanding; and the wretched King thus obliged without Limitation to pay, could see no end of paying; nor his more wretched Subjects any repose from oppression; for upon them all these demands and payments were sure to fall. Yet the Pope seems not to have been in earnest even in this Fairy Grant; Since he not only reserved to himself a power of revoking it, but openly assumed to himself the Sovereign Administration of that Kingdom, where he bestowed and resumed all Favours at pleasure; at best, without his consent, suffered not the titular King to do, or give, any thing. v fol. 264 | Henry, in order to raise the first Sum for the Pope, besides borrowing wherever he could be trusted, had recourse to his usual extortions from all his Subjects, especially from the Jews, and employed his circular Harpies, with the title of Justices Itinerant, to ransack the several Counties. Nor for all his future payments, though without number or limitation, had he any other apparent resource. It was not likely that his People would make good his frantic engagement to answer whatever Sums the Pope should borrow for whatever pur-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

410

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

pose, however under pretence of Sicily; a pretence as absurd to the English as any other pretence. Henry had indeed thus empowered the Pope to call out of England all the Treasure in it; and soon found that his whole Revenue was far short of the Pope’s cravings, which yet were daily encreasing. But though all his expedients to satiate the Pope proved as odious as they were oppressive, he still went on repeating then without pity, without shame, and even without satiating the Pope; who, as he was to have all the advantage, and valued not his share of the Scandal, made shew of assisting the King by an Order to the Bishops here to borrow money on all hands, in appearance for the King, in reallity to the use of the Holy Church: For he knew the King’s irretrievable want of Credit, | and could frighten the fol. 265r Ecclesiasticks into any compliance. He had granted the King an Aid from the Clergy for the Holy Land, but trusted not the King with the money, pretending to keep it sacred for that purpose, yet determined never to let it be applied that way, or against the Infidels in the East, but only against the Christians in Sicily. And even towards the Conquest of Sicily he would engage only to contribute the paltry Sum of a few thousand pounds, and that too on condition that he wanted it not himself for other occasions. From poor Henry he expected his all, and ordered him expressly to retrench all his expences, even his Works of Charity. The Pope, who had hitherto some Footing and Forces in Naples (then as now named one of the Sicilys) having lost both at one Blow, kept his misfortune there a great Secret from Henry; and knowing how to deceive that weak Prince by humouring him, sent over an Italian Bishop to invest Edmund in Form with the Dominion of the two Sicilys, then both under the Sway of Manfred, lately crowned King of them.40 Upon this empty Investiture the vain heart of Henry exulted: Sycophants extolled it; wise men grieved for it, and England sorely rued it. He was so little sensible into what a Gulph of infamy and wretchedness he | had plunged himself and his Country, that he fol. 265v had the strange assurance to ask a Supply from the Parliament for

40 Alexander IV, pope from 1254 to 1261, continued the offensive against Manfred, Frederick II’s bastard son, by excommunicating him and granting the papal fief of Sicily to Henry III’s son, Edmund. However, Manfred swept aside the papal army and firmly established his authority in southern Italy. He was crowned King of Sicily in 1258.

The Reign of Henry III

411

this airy Title. The Parliament who owed him nothing, no gratitude, no confidence, nor even good Will, would yet have given him a Supply even for this wild use, upon security given them (for his word and faith went for nothing) that the Charters should be observed. The security which they demanded, he, who feared that it would answer the End, declined to give them. Already the King was exhausted by the Pope; and already the Pope and King had exhausted the Nation. They thought it however, not yet a Skeleton, and proceeded to pick its Bones still more bare. Henry, who had run through all his Topics of Pillage, was at a loss, from no want of pity but of invention, how to proceed. The Pope had both these qualifications, and wherever money was to be had, never missed an expedient to get it. As whatever he had borrowed, and whatever he should borrow, Henry was bound to make good, he took care to have the account of his Borrowings carried so high, that the whole wealth and substance of England should not ballance it. So that neither King nor Kingdom, though for ever satisfying, could fol. 266r never satisfy the Pope’s debts upon the King’s | Score. His Holiness, who was never tired, nor ashamed to ask where any thing was to be got, nor to threaten such as he could terrify, not regarding, much less feeling the general distress, or any compunction from having caused it, sent over his emissary Rustand loaded with Bulls all framed for extortion. By one a Tenth was demanded from all the Ecclesiastics in England, Scotland and Ireland; with a clause added to stop their mouths and debar them the relief of complaining or remonstrating, and to cancell all priviledges, claims or objection against that Demand.41 Another dispensed with the King’s vow to go into Palestine, and enjoined him to take another and a different, for the conquest of Sicily. Henry, who took Oaths and renounced them, just as the Pope bade him, took this as readily as if it had not contradicted the former. His Holiness too pardoned the Sins of all who would follow the King thither: Nor did his Holiness now, as usually,

5

10

15

20

25

30

26 ⎡to⎤ 28 ⎡to take⎤ 41 The legate Rustand, who was a Gascon, had been commissioned, together with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Hereford, to levy a tenth on England, Scotland, and Ireland. The King had been offered exemption from his vow to go on a crusade to the Holy Land, on condition that he appeared at the head of an army to defeat Manfred in Apulia.

412

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

ask money for saving Souls, but only that his pious Votaries should shed their blood in taking christian revenge upon his Son Manfred, a christian King, whom the good Father of Christendom had cursed. Henry, now more contemptible and odious than ever in the Eyes of his People, would yet | again venture upon the meeting of his Par- fol. 266v liament, and even upon seeking an Aid from them. He trusted to a stroke of Policy well worthy of him, by not summoning such Barons as were most averse to his Schemes. The Parliament alledged this as a Reason for not proceeding to business; because such who had a Right to sit were not called, as they ought to have been according to the Great Charter. Henry dissolved them, and resumed his old Ways, confiding chiefly in the Pope’s assistance and benediction in his worst Ways. To any one who only considered in Theory how far the Pope could possibly carry his arrogance and iniquity, in consequence of his chimerical power, it would appear altogether incredible, what is yet in fact true, and indeed not worse or more incredible than many other of his known Acts of fraud and assurance; that whilst he was draining all these mighty Sums out of England and as it were its heart’s blood, all to drive Manfred from his Throne and establish Edmund in it, his Holiness applied none of those Sums that way. He gave Manfred as little trouble as he gave Edmund assistance. All his pious aim was to make England his Mine, and Henry his Bubble. Besides the Bulls above mentioned, there were many others, all | with fol. 267r the same vile design, to cheat the Nation of money for the Pope, and all under the same lying pretence. By one of these Bulls he demands four thousand pounds for the Charges of an Emissary of his own, an Italian Prelate, sent over by himself purposely for money, and thus brings a charge upon the Public for putting the Public to charges. Another Bull enjoins all who had received or set apart any money for the expedition into the Holy Land, to pay it into the hands of his Commissaries. Another demands a twentieth of the Ecclesiastical Revenues in Scotland on pretence of assisting Henry in that Expedition, after the Pope had acquitted him from making it: So that this Supply afterwards nominally destined against Manfred, was not only raised by an infamous fraud, but fell like all the rest into the bottom-

2 – 3 ⎡a christian King,⎤ 9 as ⎡who⎤

The Reign of Henry III

413

less Coffers of his Holiness. There were still more Bulls, all of the same infamous tendency, to cheat and plunder. Nor did all these Bulls, all these cheats and so much plunder satisfy the Pope; who having robbed the Clergy of what they then had, was resolved and contrived to rob them even then of what they might have hereafter, by obliging all the English Dignitaries to sign each a negotiable Note payable at a certain Time to certain Italian Merchants for so much fol. 267v money, | said to be borrowed of them, and to be applied to the use and exigencies of the Church. For accomplishing this godless Imposition, Rustand the Nuntio assembles the Prelates and acquaints them with the Pope’s pleasure that they must sign these notes and subject themselves to the payment on pain of excommunication, that is, they must be damned if they refused to be his Tools, damned if they did not submit to be cheated and ruined. Some of the Bishops declared that they would perish rather than bear such Tyranny, and the assembly in general told the Nuntio that the Clergy of England would not be the Pope’s slaves. The Nuntio was enraged and complained to the King. The King, who took the Pope’s part and was enraged too, threatened the Bishop of London, who had shewn most spirit, with the double indignation of the regal and pontifical Crowns. The Bishop not daunted, said that he was no match for the Pope and the King; but if he were deprived of his Mitre, he would cover his head with a Helmet. All this boldness deterred not the Holy Envoy from the sweet pursuit of money. He partly succeeded by dividing the Prelates: Some he gained by promises, some by Terrors; many by examples of severity: For, Excommunication was followed by Deprivation r fol. 268 which | proved the more terrible of the two: But, as many still refused, and as the King’s rapine, no more than the Pope’s, produced what money they wanted, the Clergy must be still pressed. To them Rustand renews and urges the Pope’s Wants and Demands. They plead poverty and alledge the Demand to be unreasonable and unjust. The Nuntio impudently insisted, that ‘as all Churches belonged to the Pope, so did their Revenues’. As good Papists as the English Clergy were, this position was no part of their Popery. The

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

19 much⎡ost⎤ 27 deprivation ⎡Excommunication⎤ 27 – 28 excommunication, and ⎡Deprivation which⎤

414

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

Prolocutor therefore replied, ‘that the Churches belonged to him as a Father, to protect them; not as a Proprietor to turn them into Gain’. To this the Nuncio made his best answer, which was Rage and Threats. These, instead of terrifying the Prelates, filled them with resentment. They with one accord expressed their scorn to bear an exaction so insupportable and scandalous. Rustand was forced to desist. The Pope interposed; but, like a Judge who was also a Party, decreed in his own favour. The Catholic Church, he said had contracted a Debt, and the English Clergy must pay to discharge the Catholic Church. These exactions, flagrant in their quality, rigorous in their measure, infamous in their End, and knavish in their management, proceeded from the | Father of Christendom, and fell upon his dear fol. 268v Sons in Christ. For this was still the Stile; a Stile too shameless for Judas to use even when he betrayed him. It was such treatment as was never found from the most barbarous Turk or Pagan, from any Nero, or any Bajazet, by their most obnoxious Subjects. Nor was Tyranny and fraud ever perfect till made so by the Mock Vicars of the Blessed Jesus. As to Henry’s part in these proceedings and in all others; it was too low and vile to be matched by any Prince before him. He was always humblest when the Pope treated him worst, and ignominiously submitted to his most insulting Strains. ‘Let the King know that, this is our will and pleasure’, was his Language to his Nuncio here. Henry had given himself up as the property of the Pope; No great loss to his people had he not with himself given up his Kingdom as the Pope’s spoil: He was zealously beggaring himself and them in pursuit of an imaginary Crown which he was bound to the Pope to obtain on pain of being damned, whilst the Pope remained free to give it elsewhere, and was continually threatning to do so, and even to excommunicate the King, at least as often as he was not pacified with money whenever he demanded it of the King: A Demand which he repeated so frequently and so enormously, that the | whole fol. 269r Kingdom had not in it wherewithal to content him; the wretched King, instead of pitying, much less of redeeming the Kingdom and himself, still humbling himself lower to the petulant Tyrant, still assisting him to suck its blood, and brow beating such as liked not to have their blood sucked.

The Reign of Henry III

415

The King’s weak heart was so bent upon this pernicious Gift of a Crown possessed by another, nay a Gift never intended to be given (as will hereafter appear) though the Donor could have made it good, which he never intended, but only seemed to give what was none of his own, in order to get all that the English had, though they owed him nothing but detestation for plundering them: I say the King was so bent upon this undertaking, as to press the Parliament to assist him in it. Strange assurance and folly had it not been usual! He had lately published a Proclamation enjoining the Great Charter to be inviolably observed; yet it was the evident design and practice of him and his Ministers, to violate the Great Charter themselves every Day. By this ridiculous step however he thought to coax and delude the Parliament. For as there was nothing too base for him to attempt, there was nothing so chimerical but he was apt to believe. His Demand was answered with a positive Denial, for Reasons v fol. 269 too | obvious to be repeated. He fared not the better for the Pope’s assistance, who by a Letter purposely written, and by the Archbishop of Messina42 purposely sent, warmly exhorted the Parliament to grant the King a Supply. By so much sollicitude in the Pope for money to the King, they perceived that, not the King, but the Pope was to finger it, and knew them both too well to give any to either. Henry’s application for Relief, to the Clergy was as unsuccessful, so long as he used only his own credit and authority with them. Besides their extreme disgust at the Cause, for which they had been so often and so unmercifully squeezed, they were frightened at his fresh Demands as exorbitant as they had been the first. He alledged a mighty Sum borrowed by the Pope for him, and therefore due by him to the Pope, desired them to be sureties for the payment, and in order to discharge it, to continue the Grant of their Tenths for five Years. For they were already granted for three. As this was to many of them a decimation of their Revenue for life, to all of them a prodigious Reduction; and as from this and what was past they might well

5

10

15

20

25

30

8 ⎡not⎤ 12 coate⎡x⎤ 13 ⎡as⎤ 14 to ⎡so⎤ | believe] it 23 as ⎡so⎤ 31 ⎡of them1⎤ 42

Cardinal Giovanni Colonna (d. 1245). The pope sent a series of envoys and legates to try to force Henry to pay his debts, and the king was even threatened with excommunication if he failed to do so.

416

5

10

15

20

25

30

43

Chapter 6

apprehend oppression without End; they were startled and would not gratify the King, till the Pope came to his Aid. As soon as the Nuncio accosted them | with the Terrors of the Vatican, they fol. 270r trembled and obeyed. With the Barons it was not judged safe to try the same method; least they might disgrace the papal Thunder by despising it. The Bishops, besides the confessed power of the Pope over them, were obliged to regard his fulminations; since their own would not else have been regarded. What sentiments could men who had any Religion, entertain of this Head of Religion? Can Religion, can the author of Religion, have any alliance with the author of all profaneness and blasphemy, one who prostitutes the high and holy name of God to justify perjury, oppression and fraud? One who lies and destroys in the name of Christ? Henry, never ashamed of his most shameful exactions, but rather hardened by them to commit more, having gained his point with the Clergy, proceeds next to rob the City, which he had often robbed, and thence extends the like Robbery all over England. Nor could Wales escape it. The Welsh, who never owned him for any other than their protector, were not properly his Subjects, and owed him only a certain acknowledgment. But Henry, who judged all protection to imply oppression, and constantly practised as he judged, supposed likewise that the smallest acknowledgment inferred | the lowest ser- fol. 270v vitude, though the latter was manifestly excluded by the former; and therefore, taking all Tributaries for Subjects, all Subjects for Slaves, he claimed a Right to whatsoever he had power to take. Thus he had almost always treated the English, thus he had long treated and was still treating the Welsh, with endless exactions under any pretence. And, as the more they bore and gave, the more he continued to spoil and oppress them; like all mean spirits possessed of power, never softened by patience or remonstrances; they, who had tried much and many, flew to the last remedy of men in despair, by violence to repell violence.43 Henry, who could only commit violence, but generally wanted force, always courage, to maintain it, found himself now insulted by

The Welsh, who had been causing trouble for some months, were laying waste to the border territories under their prince, Llywelyn, the second of the four sons of Gruffydd, who in turn was the eldest son of Llywelyn the Great.

The Reign of Henry III

417

the Welsh, his Kingdom invaded, his Frontiers ravaged, his People plundered, with impunity and without redress. In vain did the brave Prince his Son offer his person and service. His Father, who had drained so much money from the Nation, and applied it all against the Interest of the Nation, had none to spare for its preservation. Much of it had been lavished upon the Nation’s enemies, his foreign Favorites and Counsellors; most of it upon its worst foreign enemy, fol. 271r the Pope. As a fresh proof of his love to his People, | and his fitness to govern them, and administer justice to them, he not only allowed these shameless and mercenary Foreigners to rob and cheat and oppress his English Subjects, but granted them a warrant, or which is the same thing an Indemnification for so doing, by forbidding the Judges to issue or admit any Process against them. This was as bad as declaring war against his People, and more infamous than open war, as it was suppressing Justice and encouraging violence by authority, in time of peace, against peaceable men, in behalf of such as were openly violating all peace, property, and justice. The Pope, whose cravings, like his Want of shame and of mercy, were extreme and incessant, had not yet done with his Schemes and Demands for more money out of England, whilst any remained in it. The Kingdom had not much left; the King none but from the Kingdom; the Pope none without the King, who fearing the Pope, and not daring to hurt or provoke any but his Subjects, was always ready to concur with the Pope in every project for squeezing and oppressing them. The Pope’s Borrowings for Sicily so often paid, are still unpaid, and the King still urged to pay on; nay threatned with the revocation of that visionary Scepter, which brought him only v fol. 271 poverty and shame, unless he | submits to more. The King bears the Insult, and far from rejecting the infamous Demand owns it; only pleads want of Money, and sends him some. He had even the tameness and infatuation to make Prince Edward, his Heir, ratify his mad engagements to the Pope about Sicily. So far all was well for the Pope; and all his frauds and pride and rapine were prosperous. One thing allarmed him: The Barons had declared these engagements to be against Justice, against the Honour and Interest of England: A Declaration so true, as to be very terrible to his Holiness; who, therefore to make the most of a fraud already discovered, therefore soon to be fruitless, dispatches over a new Nun-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

418

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

cio with a swarm of apostolic Bulls, all for money, enow to exhaust a Nation of its last penny; all to clear the Pope’s debts, all contracted for Sicily. One required the payment of an Imposition remitted by a former Bull: For the present Bull dispensed with all Dispensations, all Law and every Reason whatsoever. Another was for money for the expedition to Palestine; though that expedition had been dispensed with, and was never to be made. Another added to a former heavy Taxation, and made it yet more intollerable. Another, without regard to former Taxes, laid or a new Tax, with great rigour, | and set aside fol. 272r all Pleads of Law, Right, Privileges or Poverty. Another excommunicated and damned whoever failed to pay. It would be endless to recite and explain all the Bulls then sent: They were in fact so many Commissions to cheat and plunder; and religion always made the Stab to cover and recommend them. Nor is there an End yet of the Pope’s inhuman extortions, nor the King’s confederacy with the Pope to strip and starve the poor Nation. The King soon after demands a great Sum from the Clergy to pay his debts to the Pope: And the Pope by his Nuncio awes the opposing Prelates to consent to it. For, in the Pope all the money centered, even what was raised in the King’s name and declared to be for the King. All this unmerciful Spoil, so repeated and continued, shewed what the King and the Pope were, one without sense and spirit, both without Bowels. A very dreadful Calamity, amidst all these barbarous exactions, and arising from them, moved neither Pope nor King to drop them. Poverty produced a famine so sore, that the People, besides their eagerness after the most loathsome Insects, and robbing the Swine of their beastly Wash, were frequently seen quarrelling about the Carcases of Dogs and other Carrion. This calamity was attended and heightened by another, a war with | Wales; one which fol. 272v brought public Infamy as well as fresh public distress. The bravery of Prince Edward availed not without support. An Army commanded by the King is utterly routed; no wonder, under such a Leader! The Welsh continue their Incursions and Spoil: Nor does Henry inter-

20 him | the King | 24 ⎡them⎤

The Reign of Henry III

419

rupt them. He was easily warned by the danger which he found attending Vengeance; and, not liking to provoke more, retired.44 The Pope never ashamed to ask, however without Ground, nor satisfyed with receiving whatever be the Sum, without pitying the poor Nation nor sparing the poor King, makes another attack upon both, and sends another Embassador, still upon the same Embassy, more Money. This was a trusty one, versed in the trade and stile of holy Rapine. It was old Rustand, returned once more to his former station with all his former odour of Lucre, and fresh powers to obtain it. He came upon the old Scent, but had a new lesson, not to apply directly for money, but to frighten the King to offer it for peace and pardon. He therefore threatned him with Excommunication, if he forthwith performed not his Engagements by conquering Sicily. Henry trembled and truckled, and employed his Son Edmund, nominal King of that Country, to beg for mitigation of the Terms. The Pope knew his man, and would abate nothing. Henry then, as fol. 273r his last resource applied to his Holiness | in a most solemn Embassy, for leave to renounce that chimerical Kingdom, which had so much and so long endangered and ruined his own. The Pope who liked the tameness and vassalage of the English King, and eternal Tribute from England, refused the Renunciation; but to sweeten him, sent over another Nuncio45 to make some change in the Sicilian Contract, such as without hurting the Pope, might seem to favour the King: And as a great condescention and bounty, which yet the King was not to reap, the Pope granted him another heavy imposition upon the Clergy: A Grant which though a mortal Blow to them, was a meer mockery to the King: For, it was all to go to the Pope; and to himself the Pope made it. A Bull was published by the Nuntio, commanding them to comply and pay on pain of excommunication; which was the usual penalty in all his Ordinances: As if God had created Heaven and Hell, only to help the Pope to money.

5

10

15

20

25

30

9 ⎡station with all his former⎤ 44

In the Treaty of Montgomery (29 September 1267), Henry III recognized Llywelyn ap Gruffydd as the Prince of Wales. 45 One Arlot (Rapin-Thoyras).

420

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

To this Bull too he subjoins the dispensing Clause, annulling all Claims and arguments to the contrary, however founded upon the eternal Laws of Righteousness and Mercy: A blasphemous strain, but nothing wonderful in one who so frequently dispensed with the express Laws and awful Commands of the living God! Yet all these outrages to God and man, | were committed in his holy Name, and fol. 273v for the Salvation of Men: I know not which is greater the Blasphemy or the Nonsense. Surely human assurance must be as infinite as human folly. Nor is it wonderful that they who could believe such a Being to be divine, should believe as divine whatever he said, and revere as such, whatever he did, though both his Sayings and Doings were most impious, most pestilent and profane. I have observed already that the whole conduct of the Pope’s in this affair, was a glaring course of imposture; that of all the mighty and endless Sums, gained with so many frauds, extorted with so much violence, to purchase the Crown of Sicily for the English Prince, none were expended in that pursuit; that pursuit was all a fiction, and the English Prince never intended for that Crown. But the imposture was too gainful to be dropped as long as it was gainful. What gainful imposture ever was dropped by any Pope, or any others of the Pope’s leven and spirit? Perhaps this is the best mark to know whether such belong to the Pope’s Fold. To that of Christ they certainly do not, unless such relation can be proved by want of resemblance. The patience of the nation, under such a torrent of oppressions, and double tyranny, continued for forty years together, and every year increasing, may | seem amazing. But besides that the King was fol. 274r proprietor of so large a portion of the Soil, and thence had such numerous Tenants with so much revenue and so many places to bestow, and thence so many Dependents; with the distribution of Terrors, as well as of Rewards, and consequently such Crowds to flatter him or fear him, and therefore could not be soon shaken much less removed; it was judged safer to bear him than to change him; since a civil War must precede, probably ensue the change; and it was easy to foretell the dire Effects of a civil War, though none could foresee the end of it. The example of his Father was still remembred, an enemy to his people and unworthy to reign, never to be mended,

3 A] strain | ⎡strain⎤ 5 [[...]] ⎡awful⎤

The Reign of Henry III

421

and therefore deposed, but his deposition very calamitous, almost fatal to the Nation, and nigh bringing it under the Yoke of France. These were the considerations which stayed the hands of the Barons and leading Men. Henry was in his person as despicable, as his faith and Morals were abandoned, as little feared as beloved; and perhaps a more contemptible creature never disgraced the Diadem; always prone to commit violence, never prepared, never daring to resist it; insensible of honour, faith and fame; guided by appetite; fear his only restraint; very cowardly, very vain; foolish; conceited, fond of v fol. 274 blind obedience from his People; | daily provoking his People to rebellion; imperious, submissive; a Tyrant, a Slave, lavish, rapacious, haughty, mean; falshood and oppression his only arts of reigning. Such a Sovereign, the author of so many Calamities, and by the uniformity of his Folly and Misrule threatening still more, was not always to be endured. Popular groans often bode popular Insurrections: But Henry never apprehended danger till it came. It was now at hand; and such measures taken by the English Chiefs to bind him, as no false assurances on his Part, nor any false confidence on them should defeat. Since neither Oaths nor Laws could secure them, they were resolved to secure themselves and effectually to restore, what he had so often sworn to restore, their Laws and Charters. The Lords, the Clergy, the Commons, all oppressed, all incensed, are all unanimous for Relief and future security. Common interest is the strongest Tye; and self interest fairly directed, is the justest motive. Here Law and necessity were on their side, infinite Insults and oppression, no hopes of Redress, rather a certainty than there would be none, but fresh violence and provocations. The King was indeed still the same man: He called a Parliament and even demanded a powerful Aid for the most offensive purpose, fol. 275r he could have | possibly urged, the ridiculous conquest of Sicily.46 He 46

5

10

15

20

25

30

Henry met his Parliament on 9 April 1258. The nobles were not in a compliant frame of mind, and on 30 April the king was disconcerted when the barons appeared before him in armour. He (together with his son) was asked to agree to be guided by a council of twenty-four elected magnates, which was to enforce reforms. Henry accepted, and on 11 June met the barons at Oxford. The assembly came to be known as the ‘Mad Parliament’. A council of twenty-four was appointed, half by the king from his party and half by the barons, and its purpose was to introduce reforms in the church and state. A permanent fifteen-member council was also chosen. Finally, a further assembly of twenty-four nobles was chosen by the parliament to arrange aid.

422

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

little expected such an answer as he found: He who had been long taking every step to provoke opposition, to raise Storms and Confederacies against himself, was blind to the consequences of his own Doings, at least trusted to what had often succeeded, and therefore was the less likely to succeed, humble Submissions, confession of Guilt, with oaths and promises never to repeat it. The Parliament instead of a supply, presented him with an account how little he had deserved, how wantonly he had misapplied all former Supplies, presented him with a view of all his past Councels and Conduct; a terrible detail, of falshood, oppression, meanness, perjury, infamy, rapine, profusion, his servitude to the Pope, his tyranny at home, all represented in the keenest strains and with the boldest Tone. Henry who had no choice but submission, made a very humble one, confessed all this Guilt, professed extreme sorrow and shame, and promised certain and universal amendment. If he had never acted this part before, it might have been thought sincere now: But as he had often acted it, and never proved sincere; though he had been so now, he would not have been believed. The Parliament freely told him, that | they would no longer trust fol. 275v him, nor leave to him what he had always promised and sworn, but never performed, the reformation of the State; a task which they were resolved to take upon themselves, and to accomplish it so effectually as no longer to apprehend his most faithless efforts. As none can reform a State but they who govern it, the Parliament by this declaration avowed that they were going to take the exercise of Government out of his hands into their own. Henry, always faulty and always weak, as little able to find any Remedy, as to offer any Defence, could only gain a little respite of this dreadful sentence, by proroguing the Parliament for some Weeks from London to Oxford, under the best pretext that he could invent. In the mean while fearing the Indignation and Strength of that great Body, and unable to contend with them, he yielded to his doom and even subscribed it. For, as his engagement to concur with them in their Plan of Reformation, the very next Session, though solemnly made, availed nothing, he signed an instrument; and, as his own signing it had as little

The two bodies of twenty-four were intended to be temporary institutions, and were to be dissolved when they had completed their work.

The Reign of Henry III

423

weight as his word without signing, he caused his Son Edward, a Prince of Hopes and Reputation, to sign that Instrument too, binding himself by it to ratify whatever conditions should be offered him r fol. 276 by a Committee of | twenty four Lords, half of them to be chosen by the Parliament. As nothing but force could bind Henry to observe any stipulations, even the most sacred, customary and clear, the Barons came to Oxford powerfully attended, as the best argument with him for complying with his late engagement. A Council of twenty four is chosen, twelve named by him, twelve by them, most of them men of name and weight; at least all those chosen by the Lords were so. ’Tis observable that the President of this Council was Simon de Montfort, once the King’s Favorite, and, as a Foreigner wholly depending upon the King, and then obnoxious to the Barons, now and for some time past Earl of Leicester, an English Lord, and in their interest. He was a man of great courage, address and discernment, and could accommodate himself to times and circumstances: A Lesson which his Sovereign could never learn, or was never qualified to apply. The new Council immediately proposed a Scheme of Government, such a one as may be presumed to have been before concerted. By it the King was obliged effectually to confirm the Great Charter, not by his Oath, which was reckoned no sort of Tye, but by remitting it to the Care of the twenty four: The Great Officers of State were to be fol. 276v appointed by the Twenty Four: The | Custody and Defence of the Royal Forts were left to the Care of the Twenty Four: It was death for any person of any Rank to oppose directly or indirectly the ordinances of the Twenty Four: and there were to be frequent Parliaments, more than one Sessions in the Year, free to make new and necessary Laws. This Scheme the Parliament approved, reserving to themselves a power of adding such further Clauses as might be judged convenient. The King gave his assent, which was therefore only thought effectual because the execution depended not upon him. Prince Edward gave his Oath, one conceived in the strongest Terms. What could Henry now think of his Counsellors and past Conduct? And what else could so much Folly and so much Wickedness 16 ⎡great⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

424

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

produce? He who would not be content with legal and measured Sovereignty, which would have been lasting and secure, sees himself divested of Sovereignty itself. He who refused his People the benefit of Law, receives Laws from his People: And though their Delegates should abuse their power, and treat him with hardships and contempt, he cannot consistently claim the common Relief of Sufferers, that of complaining. At worst they can scarce return him the rigid and ignominious measure, which they | had for so long time received fol. 277r from him. They had never seen happy days under him; and he was constantly unhappy by making them so, always poor, always despised, always under the most terrible of all Burthens, their Curses and his own Guilt. It was the more terrible, the less he felt it. Had he felt it, he would have removed it, and not been crushed by it. He had often, indeed all along met with severe checks, the natural effects of violent measures, and been more than once in Solomon’s Mortar. But as no rebuke, no disgrace could warn him; even this, the most affecting, the most glaring of all does not awaken him. When Fortune would have saved him; and he is snatched out of the Road to ruin, his folly proves too hard for Fortune, and he takes pains to recover distress and impotence and contempt. The execution of the new Plan of Administration, called the Provisions of Oxford, found some opposition. Prince Edward would have evaded his engagement. Henry, his Cousin German, Son to Richard, King of the Romans then in Germany,47 declared them invalid, without the concurrence of the King his Father. Earl Warren, a great Lord, refused to sign them. All the Royal Kindred from abroad were zealous for undoing what must undo | them, with the fol. 277v Bishop of Valence at their head, the man who had governed all, and was now to govern more. But the Times were altered; Power was with the Parliament, and the Parliament firm. The Earl of Leicester, a bold and active champion, encountered the Opposers with great spirit. He told the Queen’s Uncle, who declared himself resolved to keep the Castles which he held, that ‘he should leave the Castles, or

28 ⎡man⎤ | ⎡had⎤ 47

Henry of Almain (1235–71), the son of Richard, first earl of Cornwall. On 27 May 1257 Richard had been crowned ‘King of the Romans’ in Aachen.

The Reign of Henry III

425

lose his head’. His answer to the Declaration of the King’s Nephew Henry, above mentioned, was yet more daring, ‘that if his Father joined not with the Barons, he should not enjoy a foot of Land in England’. The Foreigners who found it no time to dispute, retired for shelter to Winchester, where the King’s half Brother was Bishop. But finding no place able to secure men always so hated, now so impotent, they sued for a safe-conduct to leave the Kingdom. The Parliament finding all opposition to fly before them, entered into an Association upon Oath, to support the Provisions of Oxford with their Lives and Fortunes; and at their next meeting, invited the City of London to join in the Association; an Invitation cheerfully embraced by that great Body more oppressed and plundered than any r fol. 278 other, by King and his Favorites. The next step was an Act | against the Foreigners, dooming them to perpetual Banishment. As the Bishop of Winchester was one of them, this produced a Letter from the Parliament to the Pope, who claimed an exemption to Ecclesiasticks from the civil Jurisdiction. In the same Letter the Parliament justified the late Changes in England, as also their behaviour in the affair of Sicily. They sent it by four of their own Members, with Orders to explain and support the whole. Such in England still was the influence of this worst foreign Enemy to England, over the Clergy, over the enchanted multitude, and over many of high Character; and such was the use, which able as well as weak Heads might make of this prevailing Phrenzy against public peace and good order, that it was not judged prudent to neglect him. The Barons therefore wrote to him, ‘that many Reasons prevented their complying with his admonitions about Sicily: It was an undertaking of the King’s without consulting them, and without regard to the weak condition of the Kingdom, utterly unable to support the expence: The Conditions were unequal, and too hard to be executed: If his Holyness would soften these, they were still ready to do their best. Their late Changes in the administration they had made from necessity, fol. 278v the | King’s evident incapacity; his blind attachment to Foreigners, most unfit Instruments to govern England, unknowing in its Constitution, prejudiced against the Natives, regardless of public honour, greedily pursuing their own Interest against that of the King and the 3 ⎡not1⎤ 14 Banishment],. aAs 15 [[...]] ⎡this⎤ 15 – 16 ⎡from the Parliament⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

426

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

State. One of them the Bishop of Winchester, was the chief Author of all the late and lasting Miseries in the Nation, a Traitor so black in so many instances, and under such self condemnation, as to ask a Passport to secure his flight. He had counselled the King to violate his Oaths and all Restraints, and thence manifested inveterate malice against the public-weal. They would therefore never suffer him to return; nor, if they did, would the People suffer it’. The Pope greatly disrelished this address: a sad alteration for him! No more money to be got for a mock Crown; the King his most useful Machine, now disabled from promoting holy Rapine! But as the Barons swayed all, his Holiness temporized, yet secretly encouraged Henry with hopes of leave to break his Oaths and Engagements. Such impiety they both construed to be Kindness. It was such Kindness however as the Pope meant only to himself, thence to revive apostolic Plunder; after which he | was so eager that, without pity of poor Henry’s forlorn fol. 279r State, he urged him for money to pay the Rest of his fictitious and bottomless Borrowings, nay limited him to a Day, and then, for non-payment, ordered an English Bishop to publish excommunication against all from whom he claimed it be their Quality or Station what it would, without excepting the King. But as they who now governed England, disregarded his Menaces as much as they despised his avarice and abhorred his politicks, his Orders were slighted: A mortifying change to him, but wholsome and honourable to the Nation, and a good symptom of public Morals and Sense reviving. Henry who always aimed at power without Bounds, had by that very aim forfeited all power. As the Nation, though sick of the Monarch, was not tired of Monarchy he still retained the name and outside of Majesty; and public affairs even such as the King most disliked were conducted under the Stile of Kingship. I doubt the Sovereignty was too much abridged, even for public liberty and protection. The Prerogatives of the Crown, certainly given for this end, may be so shortened as not to reach it, as well as so extended as to miss and destroy it. ’Tis this rule, observed or not observed, which makes Monarchy the best or the worst | Government in the World. fol. 279v And as a Monarch satisfied with moderate prerogatives, is always safest, and scarce ever deposed; such as are deposed may generally

2 black] and 20 ⎡who⎤

The Reign of Henry III

427

thank themselves for having forced the People upon this last Remedy; which however is not always effectual; since the great Instruments in the Change turning it to their particular use and advantage, the People feel little or no Benefit from it, but find themselves still oppressed by such as boasting to have relieved them from oppression, seem inclined to take all as a reward for having saved all. This has been the Issue of many such Changes, and shews that there is much danger in making any. What all this power taken from the King and exercised by the Barons, would have produced, had it continued much longer there, cannot be certainly judged. A civil War was probable; and the last Result of that is eternally uncertain. Suppose the King quite mastered, or dead, and out of the Question; still he had a Son, Brothers, and Nephews, all in their Turns claiming the Succession: Suppose all these were destroyed, or effectually set aside; a supposition hardly to be made, since any of them was almost fol. 280r sure of Followers: But let it be | imagined that all sway was to accrue to the Barons; it was morally impossible that they should long agree in sharing it, or in the manner of executing it. Some of them would certainly seek and gain more influence than the rest, till at last one would have more than all. So that here is a new Monarch set up, with a portion of power equal to the Means by which he got it, or to his own ability in exercising it. If he got it by the sword, he will try to keep it by the sword, and whilst he does so, is absolute. If he have it by consent, they who gave it will for their own sake, not straiten him in the execution. If he have raised himself, others will emulate him, and endeavour to raise themselves too: Some of these will strive to succeed him, some to dethrone him. Hence more Changes, or more civil Wars, or both, and matter for endless misery and discord. Whoever therefore is the first Aggressor, and by provoking and wronging the people, raises public Dissentions and Struggles, is chargeable not only with these, but with every terrible consequence and calamity following these. What an enormous, what a matchless Criminal then is a public Oppressor, who often continues to incurr v fol. 280 new Guilt for many Ages after he is dead? | Henry the third by being an Oppressor, was the author of his own distress, spoiled the Crown of its Prerogatives and Independence, was answerable for the abuse 14 Succession],: sSuppose

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

428

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

of power, if any such there were, even when power was out of his hands, for the ensuing civil War, and for all the Evils which flowed from his evil Administration. Not that the Guilt can ever atone for that of others committed afterwards, though first occasioned by it. The Barons possessed of this Power, took care to confirm themselves in it, and without making it hurtful, made it more awful than ever he could make it. The Earl of Leicester, bred to Affairs, an able Officer, and nearly allied to the King, had the chief direction. He knew the King long and well how false, how fickle, how insufficient, and resolved to keep him from ever being formidable again. He also liked power well enough to keep what he had got, probably intended to enlarge it at the expence of the Barons as well as of the King. He certainly grasped much more, especially during the War and the King’s captivity, than belonged to a Subject, and acted rather like a Sovereign. Had fortune continued to favour him, it can only be conjectured what use he might have made of Fortune. The Barons chiefly managed by him, carried their new authority, and | their ten- fol. 281r derness of it so high, as to refuse leave to Prince Richard, King of the Romans, to return into England, though he offered to assist them in their public Regulations; unless he agreed to swear to those of Oxford. He complained and threatned, wondered at their haughty proceedings, rejected the Oath, and persisted to come over; but all in vain. They prepare Forces to oppose him; he had none to match theirs, and, for permission to come, submits to the Oath as soon as he came; a very strong, very awful Oath, taken by him in a great presence and a solemn manner, in the Stile of Earl of Cornwal: That of King of the Romans they suffered him not now to assume. One thing they did of great public Utility, therefore very popular, by removing a great public evil, always grievous to the Nation, and scandalous to Religion, but always encouraged by the King in submission to the Pope, the head of the Church, and Author of every Device against the temporal and spiritual welfare of Society. They prohibited under terrible penalties, any Church Revenues from being carried abroad to foreign Ecclesiastics; a mighty swarm of Non-residents, who only held Churches here to rob the Nation, without ever seeing either. Few very able men are without ambition, | though many ambi- fol. 281v tious men have small ability. The Earl of Leicester governed the

The Reign of Henry III

429

Twenty Four, at least left them little share in the Government. As he had more experience than any of the rest, perhaps more capacity, he assumed more power than all. This gave great Offence to his Brethren, and furnished them with many suspicions, first spread in Whisper, at last openly avowed, but never effectually supported. From this jealousy and dissention amongst them the King took heart, and hoped to recover his former authority. It was not likely that he who would bear none of the mildest and most usual restrictions upon Royalty, though he would swear to observe any, would bear, longer than he was forced, such as divested him of Kingship, or keep any Oath to resign his Prerogative; a Prerogative which he conceived to be his peculiar; and to have a right of exercising without Bounds or account. He never had been more than the shadow of a King, formerly in the Hands of his Minions, now in the Hands of the Twenty Four. But he had very different Notions: To him the beauty of Sovereignty appeared in gratifying his vain and vicious humour, and in breaking the Laws; a humour soothed and flattered by his Favorites, to his danger and dishonour, but for their own Interest. It afflicted him to have his worst passions restrained: fol. 282r An | ungrateful Office done him by the Barons, forced to do it for the preservation of the State. It gave him no ease to see the Laws in force, and the People relieved and easie; perhaps he did not perceive it. Power uncircumscribed, though he was so little able to wield the least, or any power, was his Darling: Had he not continually abused his Trust, and shewn himself incapable of any, by an utter disregard of faith and honour, and every Tye sacred to conscience and the human Soul, and consequently to human Society, he might have still held the essence and reverence, instead of the mockery and bare name of Royalty, which was much to be pitied for the disgrace it was under in his person; since it might have thence fallen, and did fall for a little time, into an Olygarchy; a species of Government as inferiour to legal Monarchy, as legal Monarchy is certainly preferable to every other species of Government, at least in England, I think, under the Sun. Nor could any consideration have excused depriving the Crown of its indispensible Rights, but the unchangeable infatuation and ill faith of him who wore it. He had but two Ways of being restored to the full possession of his Throne, by violence and arms, a Way neither suitable to his con-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

430

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

dition nor his character; or by sincere Signs of remorse, and by | con- fol. 282v vincing his People by degrees that he really felt it: For he had cheated them too long, to cheat them any longer; and the worst man of any discernment will chuse the honestest course, when he perceives it to be the most proffitable. The People, as unsteady in their anger as in their affections, would have forgiven him, had they seen that he had not forgiven himself: The Body of the Barons, who sought only their own security, neither liking nor trusting a few of their Brethren invested with Kingship, would gladly have fallen back to their fixt and wonted allegiance, whenever they found that no other or more was expected from them, and would have reduced the Twenty Four to their old level with themselves. Perhaps their own Broils and animosities would have quickened their dissolution. Henry, who saw every thing in a cross Light, fancying that giving up wilfulness and misrule, was to give up Kingship, and that the practice of fair dealing, and the retracting of foul, were below a Sovereign, chose a method very fit for him, but very unfit for any good Purpose, and even for his own, though a very bad one. He, who was curable in nothing, was not to be cured of his blind servitude to the Pope, from whom he had suffered so much barbarous, so much treacherous and contemptuous usage. He | even invites a new display fol. 283r of his Tyranny, and owns it to be authentic, by seeking protection from it in the highest instance, such as implied the papal Sovereignty here to be unlimited over himself and his Kingdom, a fresh and substantial motive to the Kingdom to keep them both from any sway in it. He applied to his Holiness for absolution from his sacramental Engagements to observe the Parliamentary Regulations at Oxford. His Holiness, who counted his own gain in England by the measure of the King’s power over it, and despised the most religious Ties, when they thwarted his worldly Pursuits, readily encouraged him to defy God and his Subjects by trampling upon them and his oath to them. Henry was so delighted with this impious Warrant for mocking God and dishonouring himself, that he repaired to the Parliament then sitting in London, and before them revoked all Concessions and his plighted Faith, all so lately and so solemnly confirmed by Parliament. He owned not however upon what Principles and by

24 – 25 Kingdom];, ⎡a fresh and substantial motive to the Kingdom⎤ 30 they] would

The Reign of Henry III

431

whose encouragement he did it, but offered some reasons, however true and just out of the mouth of a Prince entitled to credit and respect, yet very impertinent and ridiculous out of his mouth, inveighing against his subjection to the Twenty Four, and declaring fol. 283v that he would no longer bear it, | though it was apparent to all the world that, without some such subjection, it was impossible to bear him. He then secured himself in the Tower and seized the public Treasure then kept there. From thence pursuing his new Counsels, or rather resuming his old, he issued Orders removing all the Officers and Magistrates appointed by the Twenty Four, filling their Places with Creatures of his own, and in effect destroying the late Settlement. This whole proceeding of his was like all the Rest, as silly as violent, equally against Justice and Prudence; a rash effort without strength, without proper precaution, and without the face of success. The Parliament to reclaim him, or to leave him without excuse, besought him to adhere to his Oath and Engagement and offered to soften such of the late Regulations as appeared too rigorous. Prince Edward highly and publickly condemned the breach of his Faith, and of the Regulations: The Twenty Four dropped all their Jarrings upon such an alarm to their common safety, and reuniting for its defence, swore once more to maintain the present Settlement. The Barons, thus unanimous and thus warned, raise their Tone, and, in a Message, threaten to force him from his Retreat and his Prompters, if of his own accord he left not both. He had no answer to fol. 284r return. | He was unable to contend, afraid to comply, and all his Hopes abortive. Forlorn as he was he had better luck then he deserved; but, ridiculous as he was, soon spoiled it. An accommodation with the Lords was proceeding with very probable Success, till he more effectually than ever convinced them, that they must never hope for any with him, by producing the Pope’s Bull discharging him from all his late Tyes.48 Such a proof of his Interest with the Pope, he presumed would frighten them, and so it did, not into easier Terms,

5

10

15

20

25

30

17 rigorous.] The 18 ⎡Edward⎤ 48 On 12 April 1261, shortly before he died, Alexander III issued a bull releasing Henry from all oaths sworn to maintain the Provisions of Oxford of 1258. Pope Urban IV later confirmed this. Both Montfort and Henry’s supporters began to raise armies. The Royalists were led by Prince Edward, Henry’s eldest son. The ensuing civil war was known as the Second Barons’ War.

432

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

such as he aimed at, but out of the Treaty, when no Treaty with such a Prince, under such a Tutor, could avail. They saw that force was the only remedy against Falshood, and agreed to seize his person; a fate which he escaped by flying again to the Tower; which he had ventured to leave in confidence of an accommodation. Here again assuming authority and defiance, when he thought no danger near, he appointed new Sheriffs all over England, by Writs of a very particular Stile: For, in them, after he has asserted without proof, that the Twenty Four had not conformed to the Articles of Oxford, yet he urges not this as his best Plea for not observing them, but uses a Plea as offensive as the Non-observance itself could be, and declares himself absolved by the Pope from his | Oath to keep them. fol. 284v This was shocking enough, as it was declaring to his People that he was always ready to oppress and forswear, whenever he had the Pope’s permission to do either; which they knew he was always sure to have at their expence; so that they must not only suffer eternal Tyranny from the King but eternally pay the Pope for a Licence to the King to exercise it. These Writs contained yet something as absurd and contradictory, ‘that he would do Justice to all men’ after he had in effect owned that neither Justice nor Oaths could bind him. He likewise promises exactly to conform to the great Charters and orders the Sheriffs to publish this his promise throughout their several Counties; when he himself was not only daily breaking them, but now owns that there is no Tye, no Bonds, which he will not break. This nomination of Sheriffs had infinite consequences; for as there were other Sheriffs still subsisting, appointed by lawful authority, and in the King’s name too, there were endless struggles between the old and new, and the people distracted to discover which were the true. Both sorts met with submission, both sorts with opposition; and these great Officers of Peace proved the continual cause of breaking it. Whilst a civil war seemed just impending, | both Sides expecting fol. 285r and preparing for it, each of them afraid to begin it, Prince Richard King of the Romans interposed, and bringing Henry to engage again to comply with the Regulations at Oxford, and the Barons to mollify such as were thought rigorous, a sort of a Calm ensued. Henry who

33 as ⎡and⎤ | either ⎡each of them⎤

The Reign of Henry III

433

always thought himself secure by every accommodation, though he kept the conditions of none, went over to Bourdeaux, without performing or so much as confirming the last. The Earl of Leicester had refused to have any share in it, alledging that where there was no Faith in the King, there could be none in Treaties with him. And since he was famous for not regarding his Oaths, it was ridiculous to trust to his promise. The Earl therefore had retired into France, but left many Friends behind him in England. Indeed few liked the late agreement, even few of such as had signed it. He was therefore soon encouraged to return, and by his return restored the Barons to their former spirit and union. The King, who had taken no measures to prevent their new Combination, was allarmed with it, and returned also very hastily, but too late to defeat it. They presented him an Address in a high strain, insisting upon his direct compliance with the Articles of Oxford, otherwise threatening to do themselves right, if v fol. 285 he | would not. They who knew his unsteadiness and Fears, but not his present resources, were surprized to hear him speak in a Stile so unlike himself, reproaching them with the name and menacing them with the punishment of Traitors. Even this courage in Words was borrowed. He trusted to that of Prince Edward, his Son, and to the assistance of the King of the Romans, his Brother. These two, who could neither govern him nor trust him till his late journey into France, found such Reasons and Offers from him there as engaged them to support him. With this view Prince Edward was at the head of some Troops purposely raised abroad upon another Pretence, that of a War against Wales. During this pause, whilst both Sides were determined to strike and neither cared to risk the reproach of giving the first Blow, unmeaning negociations were going on, each party hoping that the other would break them off first. The Pope was taught by what he had lately seen in England, and what he still foresaid, that the best of his Market was over there, when the King was no longer able to help him to spoil his Subjects, nor the Subjects willing to be spoiled even by so holy a Plunderer: He therefore, knowing that any falshood, any jargon, especially if it fol. 286r were | papal, would pass with Henry for Reason and Truth, writes him a Letter full of reproaches, for not doing what he could not do, and what his Holiness had never intended he should do, the conquering of Sicily; nay for not doing what he had often done, to the

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

434

5

10

15

20

25

30

ruin of himself and his Kingdom, and which his Holiness wanted him still to do, over and over, and forever, whether he and his Kingdom could or not; I mean sending over Supplies of money for Sicily, to be applied by the Pope, who yet never applied any of it that way, keeping all to himself, and eternally asking more, all under the same lying pretence, but all for the same real use. To make the whole Letter consistent, he threatens Henry that he would do what he had already actually done, and give Sicily to some other Prince, when he had already given it. He concludes the whole with a most impudent declaration, which likewise contained a most shameless falshood, or rather two shameless falshoods: ‘that he would seek out another Prince, who would part with more speedy, as well as more effectual Supplies’. He was at this very time engaged to another Prince, and to one who never would, never could yield him such Sums especially such as were never to be applied to the purposes stipulated. Nay he has still a device to get more money from poor Henry for Sicily, even | after he had granted Sicily to the Earl of Anjou.49 He therefore fol. 286v conceals from Henry his Grant to that Earl, in Hopes still to cheat Henry of more money, as will be seen hereafter. The Earl of Leicester perceiving the Spirit and strength of his Party, to prevent its being weakened by secret application, assembled the Barons, who all agreed to maintain the Regulations of Oxford by open Force, and appointed the Earl their General. The amusement of treating was at an End, War was begun, and the Foreigners were the first objects of its rage. The People thus encouraged, treated them without mercy every where. As by them and for them they had been themselves long cruelly used, they returned that cruel usage upon them without measure. Popular vengeance always exceeds justice, and proceeding by violence, generally ends in barbarity mistaking false appearances for true evidence, and where there are some guilty, making them many, where there are ever so many, still seeing more, punishing the innocent with the Guilty, and often most of the former. Whoever could not speak English was a Criminal, though he had no other crime. The Earl of Leicester made great progress, and

2 or ⎡and3⎤ 49

Chapter 6

Charles of Anjou (1226–85).

The Reign of Henry III

435

said himself master of all the Countries on each Side the Severn, fol. 287r ravaging the Estates of the Favorites with a | particular Strain of fury,

and without opposition. The Lands and effects of the Bishop of Norwich and some other ecclesiastical Dignitaries, the Instruments of publishing the Pope’s Bull for discharging the King from his Oath, found no exemption from plunder, though their owners claimed it from Justice. It was the fate and folly of Henry never to be able to do justice or to defend injustice. The Barons as little afraid of him as confiding in him, declared by their Leader the Earl, that they would never listen to the sound of Peace till they had utterly destroyed his Counsellors as public Enemies. Such success and so much resolution soon drew the City of London to declare openly for the Barons. The Citizens were glad of an occasion to mortify Henry, who had so long and so often oppressed them. They sent to acquaint him that they espoused the cause of the Law and the Barons, and would admit no Foreigners within their Walls. The Barons, to render their undertaking still more popular, presented him with a dutiful Petition, submitting all their claims to a free Parliament, and requesting that the State might be administered by the Natives, as all other States were. The King still in the Tower, yet depending upon the Coming of Prince Edward to his assistv fol. 287 ance | disregarded the Petition: But finding that the Barons had so stationed their Forces as to obstruct those of the Prince from advancing, he then, in despair of relief, sent to acquaint them that he agreed to their Demands: A pacification immediately follows: By it the Royal Fortresses were to be committed to the Barons: The Provisions of Oxford were to be inviolably kept: All Foreigners besides such of them as the Barons excepted, to be banished: The Administration to be conducted by English Subjects, approved by Parliament. But this was an agreement without Peace, because it was made on the King’s part without Faith. It would have been very strange if it had not. But as his Politicks were as bad as his Faith, his behaviour soon told the watchful Barons, that he who had subscribed to all, meant still to observe nothing. Instead of delivering up his Castles, he was furnishing them with Arms and Stores. Some of the most important of them were so ill provided (no strange thing under Henry’s man10 destroyed] his

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

436

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

agement) that all the bravery and address of Prince Edward could not preserve that of Bristol, and being made a prisoner, was forced for his Redemption to deliver up that of Windsor. As the Garrison there were all Foreigners, who had barbarously ravaged | and robbed fol. 288r all the circumjacent Countries, they were all banished. Still nothing passed that deserved the name of War. Henry, who had drawn it upon himself, was yet unprepared to engage in it. The Barons, cared not to incur the imputation of the first hostilities. This suspence produced a Treaty; the Treaty produced a Peace; and once more Henry violates the Treaty, and forces the Barons to renew the War. Nor could they ever have expected more by any Treaty with him, since they knew how little he regarded any, than that though no faith could bind him, yet necessity, impotence and continual ill success, might. His Plea, that he therefore broke them, because he was forced to make them, will serve for the breaking of all Treaties whatsoever, either made to prevent or to end any war; since either side who think themselves losers, as sometimes both Sides do, and one certainly must be, may plead the same, and sacrifice their Faith in pursuit of Interest: A Principle, which by perpetuating war and discord, would destroy Society and Dispeople the Earth. Were not the Barons likewise forced, by his falshood and oppressions, to seek the means of self-defence; to oppose violence to violence, when nothing else could secure them, as by long patience and repeated Trials | they fol. 288v found that nothing else would? Governors can have no Right inconsistent with the Rights of the Governed. He had abused his by invading theirs. They strove to restrain him: He would not be restrained. They therefore had recourse to force, when no Treaty, no Engagement could bind him. To demonstrate his sincerity in the last, he had restored the Earl of Leicester, with several great Lords of his party to high employments and apparent favour; yet, almost at the same time, attempted to surprize Dover Castle, then in their possession by virtue of the Treaty. This was a Declaration of war on his part, and consequently a Call to it on theirs. The Earl of Leicester advances to London; the King leaves the Tower and marches out to prevent his entrance into the City. The Earl attacks him, and forcing him to retire, enters it

5 ⎡all2⎤ 8 Thus⎡is⎤ 32 Treaty] and his own [[...]]

The Reign of Henry III

437

attended by Crowds of Citizens. The King only repulsed, not routed, was yet so frightened as to offer an agreement. The Objections to come to any Treaty with him, were unsurmountable: But the Barons wanting peace and security, agreed to an expedient, I think, a very weak, and even a dangerous one: All that could be hoped from it was that it might not succeed, as it luckily did not. Both Parties referred fol. 289r their | Differences to the Decision of the French King. That Decision was a very wild one, full of contradiction, and of no effect. By it the King of England was to have so much power as was quite destructive of the English Liberties: The English Subjects were to have all such Liberties as were inconsistent with so much power in the King. Thus each Side had its Claims both allowed and denied; a method of making them Friends, which left them to their former variance and enmity. There is much ground to believe that the arbitrating Monarch intended as much. The war proceeded: The King’s Forces gain some advantages, and take some Towns, particularly Northampton by Storm, and in it a number of illustrious Prisoners, many Barons, more Knights. The King, as unable to bear good fortune, as to struggle with bad, was for hanging them all, contrary to the Laws of humanity as well as of Policy, and hardly restrained from indulging his indecent fury even by such Reason of State and War as without Instructions from others, would never have occurred to him. These and some other instances of good luck, so elevated him, that mistaking joy for courage, and fortune for his constant Friend, he would needs try it upon fol. 289v the City; as he fancied that he now appeared as | formidable in their Eyes as he did in his own. Whatever cause they might have there to dread him as an Oppressor, they had none to fear him as a Warrior, and their own memory as well as the Earl of Leicester’s Eloquence, furnished them with sufficient Motives to resist him instead of receiving him. Upon his approach, they went forth in Arms to assail him. The Sight of danger was enough for Henry: Without tempting it further, he left it fourty miles behind him, and encamped at Lewes. Thither the Earl and confederate Barons followed him with a good Army, chiefly Citizens. To shew him however how backwards they were to come to the last extremity, they not only sat down at some 3 unxxx⎡surmou⎡n⎤t⎤able

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

438

5

10

15

20

25

50

Chapter 6

miles distance from him, but sent him a letter full of Duty, protesting their Loyalty though they were in arms, of which they intended no other use than to remove all grievous Faults in the administration. They besought him to concur with them in a work so worthy of him and engaged, that he should find them as faithful Subjects as they whose pretended Services only threatened his Ruin, and whose slanders tended to incense him against his truest Subjects. The King animated by his Counsellors, but more particularly by Prince Edward and the King of the Romans, returned them an answer in a Stile very different | from theirs. He upbraided them as the Authors fol. 290r of all the public calamities and misery: Their charge upon the Administration, he said, was false, and bade them defiance. This was a peremptory rejection of all further negotiation; yet the Barons for their further justification made another Trial, and employed some Bishops to exhort the King to peace. They proposed the regulations at Oxford, as the Grounds of it, with an offer of thirty thousand pounds to repair what Damages they themselves had done. This proposition too was rejected with high scorn and the most insulting Language. The Barons then sent to acquaint him with their final determination, that, ‘they renounced all allegiance to him, and considered him only as a public Enemy’. And, as their last argument, marched to attack him.50 Prince Edward who began the Battle by falling upon the Body of Citizens, engaged them with so much spirit as forthwith to put them to flight. But what he had gained by his courage he lost by his resentment. The Queen his Mother had been brutally insulted upon the

This battle, which resulted in Simon de Montfort becoming the ‘uncrowned King of England’, took place at Lewes in Sussex on 14 May 1264. The royalist army was perhaps twice the size of Montfort’s: Prince Edward commanded the right flank, the King’s brother Richard of Cornwall the left, while the King himself held the centre. Gilbert de Clare, the seventh earl of Gloucester, led the central division of the baronial army. As the most powerful man in the kingdom together with Montfort, Gilbert became, in June 1264, one of the triumvirate empowered to nominate the council of nine whose advice the king had to follow. (The agreement between the baronial government on one hand and the king and his son and heir Edward on the other was signed at Canterbury some time between 12 and 15 August 1264.) The triumvirate comprised Montfort, Gilbert, and Stephen Bersted, bishop of Chichester. At the end of the year, however, Gilbert changed sides, after falling out with Montfort, and was mainly responsible for victory at the Battle of Evesham (4 August 1265), in which Montfort was killed.

The Reign of Henry III

439

Thames not long before, by the London Rabble. The Prince, enraged by that affront, pursued them without giving quarter, for several Miles. When he returned to the Fight, he found it over, the two v fol. 290 Kings prisoners, | and their army utterly defeated. The Barons and their Followers, led by the Earl of Leicester and Glocester, having no hopes but in victory, determined to win that or lose all, and attacked with such firmness and fury, that the Royal Troops, who had neither the same zeal, nor the same Fears, soon fled before them. The Prince, notwithstanding his surprise and the sad situation of Affairs, had courage enough to have ventured upon retrieving all; but such was the dismay of his Forces, that he could not persuade them to follow him. The Earl of Leicester who knew the Prince and was aware what he might attempt, drew up his own men again with all speed, expecting the attack. But when he perceived no other danger but that of the Prince’s making his escape, he applied himself to prevent it. Whilst he therefore amused him with proposals, he by several Detachments beset all the Ways of retreating. Edward thus in his power was obliged to submit to his Terms: The Provisions of Oxford were the Standard; These were to be inviolably observed, subject however to the revisal and correction of Parliament. Edward agreed to all this and more; for he and his Cousin Henry were to remain as Hostages fol. 291r with the Lords, till | the settlement of the State was completed by the Parliament.51 What the Prince could not but sign the King could not but confirm. The Earl of Leicester was master of their persons, in effect of the Royal Family, in fact of the Royal Authority, and exercising kingly power in the King’s name, left him none, not even that of Denying. Henry every day gave orders which he abhorred, displaced Governors whom he loved, exalted such as he hated, and, under his own hand, condemned the whole course of his Reign, by giving sanction to a contrary course. He even issued Orders to all his loving Subjects, Clergy as well as Laity, forbidding them to yield any aid to his rebellious Son, and calling for their aid against that Rebel. For the Prince had made his escape.

5

10

15

20

25

30

27 Henry] now 33 afterwards ⎡had⎤ 51

Montfort tried to consolidate his power by calling a Parliament in June 1264 and in January 1265. On the second occasion he summoned both knights and town burgesses.

440

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

This was a terrible power in the hands of a Subject, however it might be vindicated by the Letter of the Law, or by an artful construction of Law. How far he meant to carry it, cannot be said. The King’s vicious, weak and unchangeable humours had given the Earl and Barons all advantages against himself. He was now their Prisoner, and thence furnished them with more advantages; and the chief Command in the Army in a Civil War, gave the Earl the highest | advantages of all. They were certainly under the utmost fol. 291v provocation and even necessity of doing what they had hitherto done. I doubt that after so much success, they mistook their own ambition and wantonness for necessity, and from having gained the security which they had sought, aimed at something further, without calling it Power. Instead of adhering as they had promised to the Regulations of Oxford, they formed a new Scheme of Government more in their own favour, one in my opinion neither safe, nor capable of lasting, but tending to produce new intricacies and more dangers. Whoever abridges Monarchy too much, does but take a method to set up a Monarch who will bear no abridgment at all. By this Scheme the King, though, for Form, named in it, was not to exercise one kingly prerogative independently upon nine Commissioners, who were to be appointed by three other Commissioners, who were to be nominated by the Parliament to chuse the nine. Whoever had sufficient weight and address to manage the Parliament, as many have had, might contrive the choice of the Three, and being one of them, controul the other two, and then chuse nine Creatures of his own to be the Ruling Commissioners, and probably contrive to be one of | Them, and the Leader of all the rest. fol. 292r Leicester had capacity enough to frame such Views, courage enough to pursue them, and even Means enow to promise himself success; but whether he had perfidiousness and ill Morals sufficient for such a Pursuit, he lived not to make evident, though long enough to create much jealousy of his Designs in many people, especially in the Earl of Glocester, a very powerful Lord, whose intentions seem and will appear to have been upright. For this jealousy Leicester furnished great cause, and many appearances were against him. He pro-

1 – 2 to ⎡it might⎤ 5 Barons] many, indeed 6 him ⎡them⎤ 17 Monarch⎡y⎤ 19 form ⎡Form,⎤ 21 be] [[...]] by the Parliament 29 enough⎡w⎤ 30 had] a sufficiency of | ⎡sufficient⎤

The Reign of Henry III

441

moted all his own Friends, enriched and increased his Dependents, disgraced and imprisoned such as opposed him, some of them very great Lords, and thence allarmed more, swayed the State, governed the Parliament, and contrived Snares and Pretences to remove, banish and disable whoever were obnoxious to him. All this begot suspicions, as these did Murmurs, which are not always unactive. The Earl of Glocester, who not only suspected him of aiming at Sovereignty, but thought himself not safe near him, retires to his Earldom, fortifies his Castles, makes an open League with the Lords of the Marches, receives and shelters all the Malecontents. To disarm popufol. 292v lar Censure, Leicester took a course | which only heightened it. He had been under reproach for the hard confinement of the King and Royal Family, and to remove it, obtained from the Parliament the release of Prince Edward, but with a restriction, that he should constantly abide with the King his Father. A favour which was rather an insult and mockery; the King was a prisoner, and the Prince removed from another Prison to be his fellow-prisoner. Edward however by contrivance, vigour, and a swift horse, escaped all the vigilance of such as under the name of attendents, by the special directions of Leicester, strictly watched or rather guarded him. The Earl of Glocester who had contrived his escape and sent him the horse, with a Troop at some distance to stay his pursuers, received him with high respect and equal joy. He dealt sincerely with the Prince as well as respectfully. As in procuring his liberty he had intended nothing less than to restore the violent misrule of his Father, before he would engage to assist him, he would see him oblige himself to banish all Foreigners and restore the old Constitution. The Prince readily gave his oath, and then took the Command. It hurt them little, that they all, the Prince, the Earl of Gloucester, fol. 293r and their Followers, were by Leicester and his, declared | Traitors to the King and the State, and all the King’s good Subjects ordered to oppose them. The Prince soon grew stronger than Leicester, who instead of pursuing him, was now glad to shun him, and saw himself bereft of the expected Succours from his Son; a Body of Troops cut to pieces in their March by the Prince; who vehement to improve his Victory, marched directly to attack the Earl himself, with such rapid1 ⎡own⎤ 17 ⎤ [[...]] ⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

442

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

ity as even to deceive this able General, who took him for his own Son Simon, and then to surprize him.52 The Fight was obstinate and very bloody. The Prince had infinite courage: The Earl, with equal courage, had great experience: Each knew the consequences of the Battle to himself, and both strove with infinite ardour to gain it. The Earl, though forsaken by the Welsh, who ran at the first shock, maintained the Field for many hours, ’till he fell in it: His Followers found an excuse from the Prince’s invincible bravery, for yielding to it; and this great Victory, which confirmed him in possession of his own Liberty, brought him this further delight, that it recovered that of the King his Father. Of the Earl of Leicester, his Character and Designs, much may be said to his advantage, somethings to his blame. As he was a Favorite and a | Foreigner, and thence very obnoxious to public hate, it is fol. 293v likely that many of his acquisitions here were illegal. But however he came by his own particular property, no man ever contended more resolutely than he for the defence of Property in general. This shews that though men be too willing to gain by stretching or breaking Law, yet all are zealous to preserve by Law even what they have gained against Law. The King might find cause to upbraid him; but it doth not appear that he wronged the King, though he might formerly have assisted him in wronging others. He afterwards would not suffer even the King to wrong him or others. He must have had the Reputation as well as the Possession of rare abilities to have acquired such confidence and popularity amongst the Nobility, who having so long hated and persecuted him, as a Foreigner and an Evil Minister at last followed his Counsels, and him, as their Leader against evil Ministers and Foreigners. He continued his great sway and influence amongst them to the last; a plain proof that his elevation, though very singular and high, was not fortuitous; since he could so long and so well maintain it. The jealousy and desertion of some of the most powerful of them, could not remove him, nor

2 then] equally 15 – 16 [[...]] ⎡he came by his own particular property,⎤ 52

The younger Simon de Montfort (1240–71) had delayed bringing his troops from London, and both they and their banners were captured by Prince Edward, who then used the banners to trick Simon’s father in the Battle of Evesham.

The Reign of Henry III

443

influence the Parliament so much as to censure him. He was slain, fol. 294r not | disgraced. The Barons had very early formed several Confed-

eracies, made several efforts against the many violations of their Rights, but never with firmness and success in any, till they were cemented and spirited by him. Formerly, whenever a principal Leader, particularly a Prince of the blood, forsook them, they forsook their confederacy and one another. Under the leading of Leicester, they braved all the Royal Family, beat them all, made them all prisoners. Had he continued to conquer, ’tis hard to say what measures he would have followed. He was in a dangerous situation. If the man who has once drawn his sword against his King be never safe, unless it prove likewise longest, nor perhaps even then; what risk must he run, who having not only beaten his Prince, but taken and kept him Prisoner, yet ventures to restore him again? How could the Earl of Leicester ever trust Henry the third? Nor can I conceive what sufficient restraints for his own security, he could have laid upon a spirit so false and cowardly. He who is always in fear never forgives. He who is always false, ought never to be so forgiven as to be further trusted. He had but three Choices to make, to restore the King, or to depose him and crown Prince Edward in his Room, or to set up himv fol. 294 self. | No man can say that he meant the last. ’Tis most probable that he would have taken the second choice, and deprived so contemptible a Father in favour of so hopeful a Son. This Nation seems greatly indebted to the Earl, for his gallant Struggles in defence of a free Establishment: Though he sunk under them, they had their effect; and henceforward it was always reckoned madness to attack it. He deserved high acknowledgments for checking the Tyranny of the Pope as well as of the King. Whilst he was in power, he passed an authentic Renunciation of the Crown of Sicily, in the name of Prince Edward and the Public; a Claim which had so long and so shamefully beggared the Nation to satiate the Pope. Besides the immediate benignity of the Action, it was worthy of a man of sense and a good Patriot, to encourage the spirit of the nation, now well surfeited with the ungodly, the merciless, the incessant Cheats and Insolence of Rome. 4 either ⎡any⎤ 18 ⎡He who is always in fear never forgives.⎤ 19 ⎡so⎤ 30 power,] [[...]]

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

444

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6

Whilst Leicester and the Barons prevailed, his holiness had cause to lament the low estate of the King, his constant and best instrument here for the advancement of pious fraud and spoil. They would not suffer his Legate, though a Cardinal, and already come into France, | to enter this Kingdom.53 A free Letter from the Earl, fol. 295r acquainting him that neither the Nobility nor the People would admit him, stopped his journey. The Legate in great indignation sent his Commands to the English Bishops to appear before him at Boulogne and give him an account of their conduct. The Bishops did not appear, perhaps they durst not: They had certainly no cause to like Legates, who never came upon a good, always upon a lucrative, generally upon a wicked Errand. The Legate pronounced them damned; that is, he excommunicated them: They appealed to the Pope. Such shackles there were upon them, rivetted not only by superstition, but by their own vain and interested Principles of I know not what spiritual power: Else they might have defied the Pope and all his Emissaries. At length the Barons condescend to send over four Bishops with their Reasons to the Legate for not admitting him. He, full of wrath against the Barons, commands back the Bishops now charged by him with apostolic Orders, not only to excommunicate the Earl of Leicester, but to interdict, that is suspend the exercise of devotion in the City of London, and the Territories of the Earl of Glocester. So that Leicester was to be damned, and the whole City, with particular Districts, in a way to it. | The Bishops always so hampered with clerical Ties and Tender- fol. 295v ness, as not to dare to be good Englishmen, instead of rejecting as they ought those Orders, at once so arrogant and profane, only dispatched intelligence to the Barons, that they had received such Orders. This Intelligence was properly improved: Certain pretended Pyrates met the Bishops in their passage home, seized the packet of holy Mandates, the Booty principally aimed at, and threw it into the Sea.

12 often ⎡generally⎤ | pronoun⎡c⎤ed 13 ⎡he⎤ 20 ⎡now⎤ | ⎡by him⎤ 24 [[...]] ⎡with particular Districts,⎤ 53

Cardinal Ottobuono de’ Fieschi, who became Pope Adrian V in 1276.

The Reign of Henry III

445

We see by this what small credit his Holiness had then in England, and what animosity he must have to the Earl of Leicester for that very cause. He was unquestionably a Friend to his Country by his enmity to papal Power, which had been from the beginning the great Curse of Christendom, more particularly of England, the great Bane of Religion, Reason, Morality and Property. So much public Spirit and such noble Talents in this Earl, were very unnatural Materials for saintship in those Days; yet, when he was dead the Monks treated him as one, though not for these Reasons. He who knew their spirit and practices, how apt to rail as well as to flatter whoever treated them with contempt or bounty, and what fol. 296r effect their slander or praise had upon the | People, was sensible how useful or hurtful they might be to him in his popular Views and Pursuits. He therefore always treated them with great Marks of respect. This was merit enough with them to saint him, indeed their only ground for making any Saints. Perhaps they judged that a Nobleman so signal for his conduct and great fame, would bring them credit, which with them always meant interest. And as a man who is to be sainted, must have qualifications after he is dead, as well as when alive, they readily conferred such upon the Earl, by inventing and testifying Miracles worked at his Tomb. Having thus proved him a Saint, they treat and accost him as a Deity and pray to him. So much adulation from the Monks would probably have sunk his character with Posterity, as that of a weak crazy man, very profuse and very devoted to the Monks, who thence returned him worship for worship and Saintship for his worldly bounty; had not History preserved us such convincing Instances of his fine capacity and real worth. He is accused of having exercised his authority with a high hand: He indeed lived in Times and under Circumstances that required it, during a civil war and the violence of Parties; conjunctures of great fol. 296v Latitude, when all men are | apt to claim too much and perform too little, and must be kept to their Duty and within just Bounds, by exerting spirit as well as firmness by acting with rigour, denying with resolution, as well as granting with freedom; punishing and rewarding, with equal certainty. He had numerous Followers to manage, 15 ⎡enough⎤ 25 – 26 ⎡for worship⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

446

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

many of them of high quality and as high aims, many humours not only to sooth and gratify, but to chide and correct. Awe is a natural Attribute of power; nor can the latter subsist without the former, especially in Camps and Armies, and in the leading of Parties: Nor will the greatest qualifications do where personal authority is wanting; and this often does where other qualifications are very moderate. Many have courage to obey, but want courage to command. Many are daring enough to fight, yet too timid to direct; can venture their Lives, but dare not venture to deny, still less to chide, to correct, to punish; all indispensible Offices in every man who governs others. Civil courage is as necessary as courage in the Field, perhaps more uncommon, probably of more importance. Some have it eminently in the Field, and none at all elsewhere. An accomplished Hero must have it every where. | Such Hero was the Earl of Leicester. Let him have acted with fol. 297r what modesty and reserve he could, he must have still been obnoxious to obloquy. All are so, who have many enemies, as all great men have; the greatest have the most of all; and no man can procure himself many Friends, without the risk of procuring himself more enemies. Great allowances are therefore to be made for the conduct of that Earl, and for the invectives cast upon him. He was exposed to much hate from all the opposite Party, and from many of his own. When he fell, so did his Cause, which he chiefly had supported. Great Designs which succeed not, are commonly blamed; and so are the great men who conducted them. The Earl, when he was dead, was not likely to find a favourable Character from those who held him for a Traitor when he lived. Such extenuations as these I think his conduct will bear. The clearest reproach that followed him, was his behaviour to the King during the battle, yet proceeding from no malice to the King. That Prince, to secure him from escaping, was brought into the Field, there wounded and in danger of being killed: An event capable of many aggravations, a fruitful | Theme for pity, flattery, eloquence and fol. 297v enmity; a seasonable Subject for declamation against a dead Traitor in a court triumphing for his death and defeat. The danger threatening the King, brought a fresh accession of fame to his victorious Son,

18 ⎡have the2⎤ 24 succeeded

The Reign of Henry III

447

who rushed amongst the enemy to save him, ravished him from them, put him in a place of safety, then returned with the same rapidity to make the glory of the Day compleat. The King, who had brought all these distresses and this destructive war upon himself and his Kingdom far from being mended by them, went headlong into the same mad Courses which had produced them. He had been the successful author of his own misfortunes, but having neither heart nor hand to help himself under them, saw himself delivered by the Prince his Son, a Son very unlike himself, and was so insensible of that deliverance as to make every use of it but the right use. Instead of recovering the hearts of his People by reforming his own conduct towards them, it delighted him to find that he could again oppress and plague them for their attempt to free themselves from the constant plagues and oppressions of his Reign. fol. 298r As it was the great drift of his Life | to extort all that he could from them, by any and the worst means, in order to feed his Favorites and extravagances; and as it was his great point of policy, to punish or terrify all who opposed such measures of Government, his heart now panted after Forfeitures, vengeance and spoil. Great hearts scorn to be vindictive. Wise heads hate violent Courses. Moderate dealings with a Nation are always the surest, and after a civil war, absolutely necessary. Nor do any but the cowardly and the crazy delight to deal otherwise. Thus the Earl of Pembroke, Henry’s first and only good Regent, had dealt with the Malecontents during his Minority, several of them still in arms, keeping the Field or their Castles. He had chiefly reduced them by clemency and good faith, and, by pardon and kind behaviour to such as submitted, brought the rest to submit. Henry, who was above or below all such arts of Government (for the contrary Arts deserve not that name) led by his old Counsellors, Rage, Greediness and Parricides, pursued his old Tracts of seizures, exactions and revenge. Besides seizing great numbers of Estates, some for his own use, some bestowed on Favourites; where he could not fol. 298v reach Estates and Persons, | he had recourse to outrages and Fines. From the Citizens he took their Houses, Furniture, Money, Stock, Lands and Tenements, and gave them to his Domesticks. He arrested the Sons of the most eminent Citizens and confined them, as Pledges 9 Son2] so 31 exa⎡c⎤tions

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

448

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 6

for their Fathers, but obliged their Fathers to maintain them even in the Tower. The City was spoiled of her Gates, Chains, and even of her Magistrates, and a great sum was exacted for replacing them. Thus they were forced to purchase their peace from him, whose Tyranny had forced them into war. For these proceedings he had the sanction of the Parliament, the more partial and courtly, as many Members of the greatest weight, the popular Barons, were not in it, some slain, some fugitive and undone, others still in arms. By these mad measures may be seen what desperate Counsellors governed the King, and the King’s infatuation thus to govern or be governed. The People made mad by poverty and oppression, had taken arms; and the King without regard to the Cause, and their further distress from the calamities of war, renews the Cause by repeating the provocation. He still oppresses, still squeezes, as it were forcing them upon the same remedy. The consequence was | natural: fol. 299r Such Leaders as were in arms and Garrisons kept both: There were new Risings: New Fortifications were made; others were increased. Most of those who thus maintained their ground, did it so long and so resolutely, as to submit at last upon honourable Terms, after they had endured all human hardships, the severest of all, Famine, to such a degree that they looked more like Ghosts than men, and were so weak as to be hardly able to take sustenance when they met with it. Probably they would have chosen rather to have utterly perished than come to any Terms, had it not been for their confidence in the honour of the Prince; and to him they surrendered. It is certain that they had before rejected very tempting Conditions, a general Pardon and a moderate composition for their Estates, but would never trust the faith of the King who was known to have none. Indeed none could trust him, unless they could command him, as the Pope always did, and without ever keeping any trust with him, made him always keep his. He therefore could never have had final Peace with his People without the credit as well as bravery of his Son, who after five years intestine disorders, by that bravery and that Credit, resettled the | State, in spite of the worst difficulty of all, the forlorn character fol. 299v and incurable perfidiousness of his Father, who was still for violating

3 ⎡was⎤ 18 g⎡r⎤ound 34 one as well as the other ⎡that bravery and that Credit⎤

The Reign of Henry III

449

all Conditions and capitulations as soon as they were made, and without one talent for war, was perpetuating war by the irrevocable distrust of his people in him. I am sorry to say, that even the brave Prince Edward, elated by success, and perhaps from a false fondness for Prerogative, was grown less anxious for the execution of his engagements. This his behaviour and the old measures renewed at Court, allarmed many, particularly the Earl of Glocester, an honest and publick spirited man, who having rescued the Prince from Confinement, and then only undertaken to serve him upon his Oath to restore the Laws and Charters, took arms now to force him to it, entered the City, and seized the Tower out of the hands of a very unnatural Governor, the Pope’s Legate.54 The King, as destitute of warlike ability as of popular estimation, could have made no resistance, had not the Prince hasted from the North to assist or rather to protect him. Edward, justly admired and very popular, saw himself at the head of such a Force as much surpassed that of the Earl but was wise enough to agree to an accommodation, whence peace was restored and now became general. | Whilst the King’s affairs continued low, so did the influence and fol. 300r traffic of the Pope here. His Holiness therefore watching the tendency of things, always blessing and cursing men and events according to his own Loss or Gain by them, soon after the defeat of the Earl of Leicester, sent over a Legate, who in an assembly of the Clergy purposely called, denounced solemn Damnation, or in other Words excommunication against the dead Earl and all his adherents, dead or alive. What less could be due to Leicester and his Party, who had shewn higher regard to the Interest and dignity of England than to the Pope’s pride and profit? Besides he who was now Pope was the very Legate whom they had refused to admit into the Kingdom, when he had already come as far as Bouloigne, and was there ready to embark. It might have been easily guessed how tenderly the pious Pontif loved them, though he had not cast them into Hell, as he now

5

10

15

20

25

30

2 ⎡was⎤ | their 3 ⎡of his people⎤ 32 not] now | ⎡now⎤ 54

Benedetto Gaetano, the future Pope Boniface VIII, was also besieged, together with Cardinal Ottobuono, in the Tower of London by the rebellious Earl of Gloucester. They were rescued by the future Edward I.

450

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

55

Chapter 6

did, for their want of manners. The King he knew was still his Liegeman; but even the King with all his good will, wanting the power to throw away more Sums after the Fraud of the Sicilian Grant, his Holiness acquaints him by a Letter, that he had found a Bull of his Predecessors revoking that | Grant. This Bull had been kept private fol. 300v till all the money that was to begot, could be got, and now owned, when no more was to be got. Does the History of the Saracens exhibit any cheat amongst the Caliphs, Successors to Mahomet, superiour or equal to this cheat so long practised by the Successors of Saint Peter? Yet it is one of their least and most pardonable Cheats. The poor King, ever vain, ever deluded, as poor as he was in honour and in purse, was yet afflicted to have both saved by the conclusion to this very disgraceful, very grievous Farce. The Legate had but two more Matters of consequence to transact here, first to get money then to advance public delusion, the surest means of getting both money and power. As to the first the art was to get money by seeming to give it. The Pope grants the King a Tenth of the Revenues of the Clergy, for four years; that thence the King might pay the Pope, what the Pope still insolently exacted from him, and what he was mean enough to pay, an annual Tribute, as a vassal, to Rome. The second step, under the guise of a general and pious good, was still more pernicious, and a higher strain of holy craft, before tried with success. He acquaints the | Parliament that the fol. 301r Pope intended to set up the Banner of the Cross against the Saracens, and exhorts the English to be liberal of their Money and Persons, in support of it. His best Argument was a great Falshood, that the only End of it was the Glory of God, and the good of the Church. But the World were so bewitched that the Interest of the Pope then passed for both. I have already observed how destructive to Christendom, how contrary to Religion, to good Morals and good Policy, and how advantageous to the Pope these frantic undertakings were; how passionately and inhumanly he promoted them, or baffled them, at an infinite Expence of Christian Blood and Treasure, just as the doing of either gratified his present Passions and Pursuits. I should here still say more upon the same Subject, had I not done so in one of my Discourses upon Tacitus, that upon the Bigotry of Princes.55 One Gordon, ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’, vi, ‘Of Bigotry in Princes’.

The Reign of Henry III

451

Thing I shall add, that when the Clergy had pressed and preached the People into such a Passion for these frantic Expeditions, as the fol. 301v shortest way to Salvation, that they who wanted | Money were ready to sell their Land, without Regard to Family or Posterity, the Clergy, who generally chose to stay at home, were complaisant enough to 5 purchase it, and for such Complaisance found very easie Bargains from such crazy Bigots.

Chapter 7

The Reign of Edward the Second fol. 314r Edward the second came to the Crown with many Advantages: The

credit and strength of his Father’s Reign, the Kingdom enlarged; Wales conquered, Scotland so often over-run, now miserably weakened; Peace with France, no Factions in England, nor jarrings between the Crown and People; himself in the Prime of his Age, his Person graceful and tall, his aspect pleasing: He thus ascended the Throne with universal Consent and Applause. He had no Difficulties to encounter, no obstacles to overcome, nothing to do but to let Affairs go on in the Course which they were in. It was no small Folly or little Mistakes that could possibly deprive him of the use of so many Advantages. But like other weak and unworthy Princes, he fol. 314v considered the Authority royal, not as a | Duty and Trust, but only as the Power of being supremely extravagant. He therefore transferred the whole Trust of Royalty to his Favorites, who abused him as much in executing that Trust, as he did his People in not executing it at all. His Father, having early perceived his Temper and how blindly he was led by a debauched Minion, had obliged his son to part with him, upon Oath never to recall him. It was a melancholy Sample, and Prognostic of his Reign, to see him begin it with an open Breach

18 him ⎡his son⎤

5

10

15

20

454

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 7

of this his Oath, taken to a Father scarce yet cold.1 The Sequel was of a Piece with the first Step. He instantly set Gaveston above all Men, nay above himself and over the Kingdom, which he began to dismember for his sake: He gave him the Rule and Propriety of the Isle of Man, the direction of all Affairs, the Disposal of all Employments, and the Princess his Sister for Wife;2 expressing great Concern, that he could not set the Crown upon his head. He thus became a Slave to his Favorite; a Lot which he might chuse for himself, since he was low and weak enough | to like it: But fol. 315r the brave and free English Nation owed no Allegiance, nor even regard to an Intruding Gascon, who used them insolently, engrossed all Favour, rioted at their expence, was the Instrument of Misrule and of all public Grievances. If he was a handsom Fellow, a lively Buffoon, and thence pleased the King as a Companion, it only shewed how little able his Majesty was to govern, when he would needs govern by such an Instrument, and give him the whole Sway of the State for his Face and his Jests. It does not appear that this strange prime Counsellor (strange indeed for that Character!) had any Qualifications for supporting even the worst Councels; that is to say his own. He knew only how to make the whole Kingdom hate him, and to despise his Sovereign, but to fear neither. Whilst he was taking every Step to raise Disgusts and Allarms, engrossing all Power, and Places, and Money, setting himself above the Grandees of the Realm, and treating them with Insolence, usurping the Privileges of the Princes of the Blood, displacing all the late King’s Officers and Domesticks, and incensing all Men, he | took not one pertinent Measure to secure himself. He trus- fol. 315v ted to the King’s Weakness and to the Royal Power, when there was

1 ⎡this⎤ 4 sake],: and ⎡He⎤ 11 a despicable ⎡an Intruding⎤ 19 Quallifications 1

Piers (called Perrot) Gaveston (c. 1284–1312) was the son of a Bearnese knight, Arnold de Gaveston, who after being taken as a hostage in France eventually escaped to England in 1296. A former ward of Edward I, in 1307 Piers was ordered to leave the country by royal mandate chiefly because Prince Edward was overly dependent on him. After the king’s death, Edward recalled Piers and nominated him custos regni from 20 December 1307 until 9 February 1308. 2 Margaret de Clare, countess of Cornwall, (1293–1342), the second of the three daughters of Gilbert de Clare and his wife, Joan of Acre (a daughter of King Edward I and his first wife Eleanor of Castile).

The Reign of Edward II

455

already a greater Power, the Confederacy of the Barons, formed against them both. Instead of seeking the Aid of able Men he filled the Court with Debauchees, Jesters, and low Flatterers; and to make himself still more odious, he had the Boldness not only to wear the Jewels of the Crown, but often the Crown itself, governing in a kingly manner, and scorning to ask any man Counsel, even when he saw the terrible Power and Rage of the combined Barons ready to fall upon him. When the Parliament applied to the King to banish his Favorite, he and his Favorite had no other Ressource but a promise of Compliance, without any intention to observe it. On the contrary, new Favours and fresh Marks of Distinction are heaped upon this detested Frenchman and the weak King applies to the Pope whose Power and Intermeddling had proved so fatal to his Predecessors, to annul the Excommunication denounced by the Arch-Bishop of Canfol. 316r terbury against Gaveston in case he departed not out of | the Realm.3 The Lords still more provoked by being deceived, oblige the King to keep his Word, which he does but by halves. The Minion is sent away, but goes in Triumph, with an ample Commission to govern Ireland, and his nominal Banishment is rewarded with a Kingdom, where yet he stays not, but procures himself to be instantly recalled.4 So that again he is seen dancing the poor King like a Puppet, insulting the great Peers and controuling all things. These great Peers, thus falsly used by the King, and contemptuously by his Minion,5 make a bold Remonstrance, ‘of the weakness and irregularity of the Government; no longer to be borne, and the necessity of putting the Administration of all Affairs, even of his

5

10

15

20

25

11 intention] of Compliance 26 ⎡to⎤ 3

Both Archbishop Winchelsey’s excommunication of Gaveston and the unrelenting opposition of the barons — voiced in the Declaration of Boulogne in January and the Homage et serment declaration in April — finally compelled Edward II to issue a writ, on 18 May 1308, banishing Gaveston by the morrow of St John the Baptist’s Day, 25 June. See Haines, King Edward II, pp. 56–64. 4 Edward made Gaveston lieutenant in Ireland in place of Richard de Burgh, the earl of Ulster, who had been appointed the previous day. Gaveston’s period in Ireland lasted just over a year. 5 This was when Piers developed his notorious habit of giving the earls nicknames.

456

5

10

15

20

25

6

Chapter 7

domestic Affairs, into the Hands of a select number of Lords appointed by Parliament’.6 The King, who had done enough to draw upon himself this high Demand, yet as he had not foreseen it, was not prepared to oppose it. As he was haughty without Courage, he was complying without Capacity. He who had not yielded at first to part with | Gaveston, fol. 316v which was all that the great Men demanded, now submits to part with his Royal Authority and his Honour; which was all that, as a man or a King, he had to give.7 He was, notwithstanding all this Warning and Mortification, so irrecoverably abandoned to his uncontroulable Fondness for this wretched Instrument of his Ruin, that he created him Warden of the Forests on this side Trent and Governor of Nottingham Castle. The Consequence was natural: The Lords presented him with a number of new restraining Articles, one for the perpetual Banishment of Gaveston who must have been as miserable a Politician as his Master, to do so much, see so little, and provide for nothing.8 The King was distracted enough to recall him once more, and he foolish enough to be recalled, nay to grow more saucy and arrogant than ever, and even to affront the Queen, a Lady of high Spirit and a terrible Enemy. She complained with great Bitterness, ‘that he had alienated the King’s Affection from Her, and made Him a Stranger to Her Bed’.9 This furnished the Barons with a fresh occasion of allarming and rousing the People, | who having seen so much, were easily persuaded fol. 317r to believe any thing and the worst. The King, in vain and too late, published a Proclamation, with Assurances of his Intention strictly to observe the Articles with the Lords, when he had just violated

This petition presented at the Westminster Parliament in February 1310 somehow prefigures the ‘Stratford Articles’ of 1327 (named after John de Stratford, archbishop of Canterbury), which provided justification for Edward II’s enforced abdication. 7 The king gave his assent to the petition on 16 March 1310. The elect (the Ordainers) were to retain their authority until Michaelmas, and then for the following year. 8 Gaveston was forced to leave the country in accordance with article 20 of the New Ordinances. 9 Isabella (c. 1295–1358), daughter of Philip IV of France. Queen Isabella seems to have started collaborating with the ‘opposition’ after Gaveston returned from his third exile.

The Reign of Edward II

457

openly the most glaring and popular Article of all, by recalling Gaveston.10 The Barons seeing what was to be apprehended from such a King and such a Minister, resolved to proceed to extremities. The Speech of the Earl of Lincoln to the Earl of Lancaster his Son in Law, and his Zeal for the Cause, are remarkable, the more for that he then thought himself Dying. He conjured him ‘never to abandon the People of England to the Will of their Kings, nor the Church to that of the Pope. He thought it a Duty incumbent upon his Birth and Quality, to free the Kingdom from its present Oppressions’. He recommended to him ‘a tender regard for the King’s Person, but equal ardour in removing from him Foreign Ministers and Favorites’. He said, ‘that Honour, Conscience and the Public Good, called fol. 317v upon the Earl of Lancaster, to procure the Observance of the | Great Charter, the only Basis of the Peace and Welfare of the Kingdom, and advised him to a strict conjunction with the Earl of Warwick as the most able of all the confederate Lords to conduct such a great Undertaking’.11 During all these Preparations for War, nay when the Lords were actually at the Head of an Army, the poor King continued diverting himself with his Favorite; and distinguishing him with fresh Graces. It was no wonder that he gave so little Trouble or Opposition to the Lords, who had little else to do than to pursue him and Gaveston from Place to Place, ’till they seized the latter, and cut off his Head in a most arbitrary Manner, even contrary to Engagements:12 So much hatred had He, so much contempt had his Master drawn upon themselves. The Lords however make great Concessions, and particularly restore the Jewels of the Crown, found amongst Gaveston’s Baggage, but boldly insist upon the Observation of the Articles with an immediate Redress of Grievances.

10

5

10

15

20

25

30

In the Proclamation issued on 18 January 1312, Edward declared that Gaveston had been exiled contrary to the laws and customs of the realm. 11 The Earls of Lancaster, Pembroke, Hereford, Arundel, and Warwick swore a mutual oath and secretly devised a plan to capture Gaveston. 12 Gaveston was executed at Blacklow Hill on 19 June 1312.

458

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 7

An Agreement ensues;13 the King moreover promises a general Pardon to the Confederates, who consent to his including in it Gaveston’s Adherents as well as theirs. The | Barons perform their Engage- fol. 318r ments punctually. The King, warned by no Experience, was still too weak to know, that Falshood is one of the most disgraceful, therefore one of the most hurtful Weaknesses in a King. He prevaricated for more than a Year, before he would publish the General Pardon, in hopes of violating his Faith still further by being revenged on the Barons, to whom he had pledged it for their Security. The Barons aware of his Designs, begin to arm again, but by the Interposition of the Queen and her Father the French King, he satisfies the Lords by publishing the General Pardon which was afterwards confirmed by Parliament.14 His Conduct in his War with Scotland was like his other Conduct. His Father died at the head of a great Army ready to overwhelm that Kingdom, and at his death enjoined his Son to pursue the Design. The Son, when he had led the Army as far as Dumfries, leaves it there under the Command of a Scottish Man, out of impatience to return, and meet Gaveston, though his dying Father had just enjoined him upon Oath never to restore that scandalous Libertine, as I have already said. Robert Bruce, though very ill, yet very brave and attentive to all Advantages, | attacks the English, and beats them, fol. 318v as does soon after his Brother Edward. Instead of repulsing the Scots and recovering the honour of the English, King Edward loses opportunity and wastes Time in meditating revenge upon the Lords for the death of Gaveston, and afterwards in prolonging the Negociations on design to deceive them. Even when he had raised an Army, such an Army for number as had scarce ever been seen in Britain, consisting of one hundred thousand Men, it had one material Defect from the Absence of the most powerful and popular Leaders, the Earls of Lancaster, Arundel, Warwich etc., a defect chargeable on the King’s Want of Veracity: They

5 know, that B : know that A (fol. 306r) 5 – 6 ⎡disgraceful, therefore one of the most⎤ 17 it ⎡the Army⎤ 24 – 25 loses opportunity B : loses the opportunity A (fol. 306v) 29 in] Great 13

A peace treaty was drawn up on 20 December 1312 in the papal envoy’s London residence. On 6 November 1313 the parties agreed that no one was to suffer on account of Gaveston’s death.

14

The Reign of Edward II

459

would not trust themselves in his power. This mighty Host suffered an utter Defeat, the greatest that ever befell the English.15 Neither this unparalelled Loss and Disgrace, nor the most consuming Famine ever known in England, nor the Misery and Murmuring of the People, could hinder the King from celebrating the Funerals of the odious Gaveston (the Cause of so much Infamy and fol. 319r so many Calamities to the King and | Kingdom) in a pompous and expensive Manner.16 Edward, weak as he was, could dissemble, a Quality common to the meanest People, indeed to the meanest quadrupeds. His Dissimulation was Treachery: He still fostered Designs of Vengeance, especially against the Earl of Lancaster. But as known Dissemblers can rarely dissemble with Success, his Rancour to the Lords was well known to them. Thus whilst he was meditating secret Mischief against them, without Power to inflict it, they were securing themselves against him, and ready to turn it upon his own head. The public Calamities and Distress, the Ravages of the Scots, and the Desolation of the Nation, moved not Edward, who was only bent to destroy such as would oblige him to redress these Calamities. The Barons to humble him and prevent him, had presented him with a long List of national Grievances, and demanded speedy Redress. He, who meant to redress no public Evil, but to introduce more, yet durst not refuse, though resolved not to comply. Thus he had every Thing referred to the Determination of the next Parliament. But under false Colours he suffered not the Parliament to sit; fol. 319v prorogued it from time | to Time, and at last dissolved it. The Barons utterly provoked, unanimously resolve by Arms to procure the Re-

5

10

15

20

25

6 – 8 Funerals ... Manner. B : Funerals of the odious Gaveston in a pompous and expensive Manner: Gaveston, the cause of so much Infamy and so many Calamities to the King and Kingdom! A (fol. 306v) 23 So ⎡Thus⎤ 23 – 24 Thus ... referred B : So he had referred every thing A (fol. 307r) 24 had] referred | ⎡referred⎤ 26 he ⎡and⎤ 15

At the Battle of Bannockburn in June 1314, Robert the Bruce, king of Scots, defeated a much larger English force under Edward II, thereby effectively reestablishing an independent Scottish monarchy. There is disagreement about how many men actually fought at Bannockburn, but the figure could have been as high as twenty thousand. 16 On 2 January 1315, in the presence of the king and a goodly number of bishops, Gaveston was buried in the royal chapel at Langley.

460

5

10

15

20

Chapter 7

dress which He had promised and eluded. The miserable Prince, always provoking Injuries by always doing them, was never prepared to repell them. He only shewed that he was naturally a Tyrant, but wanted capacity to practise Tyranny. He must now have been utterly oppressed, had not some pacific Lords promoted a Reconciliation. The King, always meanly submissive or ridiculously imperious, yielded to give satisfaction to the Barons. He engaged to admit a certain Number of them, particularly the Earl of Lancaster, into his Council, under a solemn Promise to do nothing without their Consent.17 The King of Scots, a Prince of great Spirit and Abilities, continued his Conquests and Ravages in England, and had almost conquered Ireland,18 amusing King Edward all the while with Overtures of Peace artfully prolonged. He at length layed siege to Berwick, the only Scotch Town left in the hands of the English.19 Edward staid unactive at York, without Troops, without Money, and which | is fol. 320r worst of all, without Credit; his Subjects disgusted, hating and distrusting him, instead of being willing to assist him; a Parliament more likely to reproach him than supply him; and he himself more bent upon personal Vengeance than public Utility or his own Glory. He was so stupid and so wicked as to offer any Terms whatsoever to the King of Scots, on condition of procuring the murder of the Earl

1 they ⎡He⎤ | [[...]] sought ⎡promised⎤ | and] he ⎡[[...]]⎤ 17

Edward reiterated his promise to observe the Ordinances, originally made at the York Parliament (1314), at the one which assembled on 20 January 1315 at Westminster, and again on 27 January 1316 when the parliament met in Lincoln. On this last occasion, Thomas Earl of Lancaster (c. 1278–1322) was appointed as the king’s chief councillor. Within a couple of months Lancaster withdrew from the court. In 1318 the parliament was repeatedly prorogued and eventually abandoned due to the Scottish invasion, but also because it was feared that Lancaster would come armed. In a formal agreement at Leake, Nottinghamshire, on 9 August 1318, it was agreed that the king should be constantly attended by a council of five clergy and laymen. Lancaster was not on the standing council. 18 In April 1315, Robert the Bruce put his brother Edward in command of an expedition to ‘liberate’ Ireland from the English. In the same month, Bruce designated his brother Edward as heir. Edward Bruce defeated the Anglo-Irish barons, and on 2 May 1316 was crowned High King of All Ireland. He defended this title until he was defeated and killed at Faughart on 14 October 1318. 19 Robert made three unsuccessful attempts to capture the town from the English, in 1312, 1316, and 1317. He finally managed it in 1318, with the connivance of an Englishman named Peter of Spalding.

The Reign of Edward II

461

of Lancaster, first Prince of the Blood, and the most popular Nobleman in the Kingdom, perhaps deservedly so, since Edward and his Favorites hated him. Edward, thus pushed by the Scots and thus impotent in England, takes a Method to procure Peace, more pernicious than War. He humbly besought the Pope to interpose his Authority. The Pope was always attentive to all Occasions of making England his Property, and the King his Slave. His two Legates came over armed with Powers professedly to awe and compel both Kings to apostolic Obedience; with Threats of Excommunication and of an Interdict upon their Dominions, if they disobeyed. This was directly assuming to controul Princes even in Temporals. Yet Edward, as a fresh Proof v fol. 320 how unfit he was to wear a Crown, | debased his by yielding implicitly to the Pope. The brave King of Scots would not suffer the other Legate to enter his Dominions, which he had been unworthy to rule, had he subjected himself to a miserable usurping Friar at Rome no better than one of his own Chaplains.20 This Expedient as impious as base failing Edward, and the Scots still making new Conquests and Inroads and gaining Victories over a people lately their Masters, and still vastly more powerful (such difference is found between a Country and itself under an able or an impotent Prince!) He set himself to procure a Truce; and, after much mean Sollicitation he obtained a Peace for two Years.21 A faithless Prince can never expect to be trusted; neither will he willingly trust such of his Subjects as controul and restrain him. A Pacification subsisted between him and them; so did mutual Enmity. The Lords, who as strongest gave Law, had placed a Confident of theirs in a considerable Office at Court,22 to watch whatever passed there, and apprize them of all. This was the famous Hugh Spencer, fol. 321r who being easily persuaded by | his Father, a Man of sense and exper20

5

10

15

20

25

30

Pope John XXII sent Cardinals Luca dei Fieschi and Gaucelme de Jean in response to the English embassy. On 27 November 1317 Cardinal Luca celebrated Mass in St Paul’s and issued a bull calling for a two-year truce between the King of England and Robert the Bruce, sub poena excommunicationis. On 3 September 1318 the ‘rebel’ Bruce was excommunicated and Scotland placed under an interdict. 21 The peace was to enter into force from 29 December 1319. 22 Hugh Despenser the Younger (1286–1326) was appointed king’s chamberlain with the consent of the council in late 1318.

462

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 7

ience, that more was to be gained by being the King’s Favorite than a Creature of the Barons, improved the advice so effectually, that he soon became a second Gaveston, absolute Master of the King’s Spirit, and wanton with Power. He indeed abandoned himself at once to intollerable Insolence and Avarice without Bounds. Few can support the Smiles and Stimulations of Power. His Father had hitherto and long borne a fair and high Character for great Probity as well as for great Sufficiency in Affairs. He now fell headlong into ambition and all the lawless Excesses of Power. He and his Son became odious to the Nation, and drew Odium and Peril upon the King, especially from the Nobility, who foresaw their own Ruin inevitable from these two Favorites, the ablest that had ever been about him, and one of them23 lately invested with the Dignity and Title of one of the first Earls in England, that of Winchester, unless instant Measures were taken to prevent them. They had furnished sufficient Matter for a very high Charge against them, | by fol. 321v their abusing the Prerogative and violating the Laws and Privileges of the Kingdom. The Barons took the hastiest Method and consequently the surest, and began with Levies of Men instead of Remonstrances upon Paper.24 The King, ever fond of Favorites and Misrule, though never prepared to defend either, had no other Resource against the Petition of the Barons to banish the Spencers but to refer it to the Parliament, which forthwith agreed with the Request of the Lords. The King consented, but swore Revenge, and by the assistance of the Queen

12 – 15 the ablest ... prevent them. B : The ablest that had ever been about him, unless instant Measures were taken to prevent them. To heighten the Terror of the Lords, Spencer the Father had lately been invested with the dignity and title of one of the first Earls in England, that of Winchester. A (fol. 309r) 18 – 19 hastiest Method and consequently B : quickest method, consequently A (fol. 309r) 24 – 463,1 The King ... very tragically. B : The King consented, the Spencers were banished, and the Lords appeaced; but the King, bent upon Vengeance, swore to execute it, and by the assistance of the Queen A (fol. 309v) 23

‘Spencer the Father’ (1262–1326), sometimes referred to as ‘the Elder Despenser’ (cf. fol. 309r). 24 On 14 August 1321 the earls and barons met in the king’s great hall at Westminster and once again demanded that the Despensers be declared traitors and enemies of the king and kingdom. Hugh the Elder went into exile in Bordeaux, while Hugh the Younger became a highly successful pirate in the English Channel.

The Reign of Edward II

463

lately affronted by one of the Barons,25 executed it very tragically. He raised an Army when they had none, and by a deceitful Proclamation, protesting that he meant only to punish one Man, kept Them from having any. But directly against his Protestation, he turned his Forces against the Barons; and abounding in Vengeance, in Proportion to his want of Courage and Probity, he bent his utmost Fury to ravage, confiscate, imprison, kill and destroy: Particularly, to humour as well as to assist his Rage, he recalled the Spencers, both Traitors, fol. 322r one of them then an infamous Pyrate especially upon the | English. Rapin says, ‘that never since the Conquest had the Scaffolds been drenched with so much English Blood ’.26 He might have added, Illustrious Blood. The great Earl of Lancaster, first Prince of the Blood, was doomed (two public Traitors, the Spencers, his mortal Enemies being amongst his Judges) to be drawn, hanged and quartered. The King, whose Policy was Perfidiousness, his Courage and Conquests Cruelty, seemed to think it his chief Prerogative to be greatly false and mischievous. The Earl of Lancaster, who was so good a Man as to pass with the People for a Saint, and was afterwards by this King’s Son (the great Edward the third) procured to be canonized,27 passed with Edward the second and his Favorites for a Villain and a Traitor. Cowardice never shews Mercy: Edward made a Carnage of his Subjects equal to his fear of them. To satisfy the Fury, Jealousy, and Avarice of the Spencers, near twenty great Lords were put to death; many Knights hanged in Chains, near seventy put to ransome. Many of all sorts perished in Exile.

5

10

15

20

25

9 ⎡then⎤ 13 – 14 doomed ... quartered B : doomed to be drawn hanged and quartered. Nor was the Horror of this Sentence to be wondered at; for two public Traitors, the Spencers, his mortal enemies, were amongst his Judges. A (fol. 310r) 25 In 1321 Margaret de Clare, a Norman-Irish noblewoman and the wife of Bartholomew, the first Lord Badlesmere, refused to admit Queen Isabella to Leeds Castle, where her husband was castellan. When King Edward was informed of the incident, he dispatched an expeditionary force to take the castle. Margaret was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London, whereupon Lord Badlesmere joined Lancaster’s rebellion and fought at the Battle of Boroughbridge. He was hanged for treason on 14 April 1322. 26 Rapin-Thoyras, The History of England, vol. i, p. 396. 27 Lancaster was beheaded as a common felon on 22 March 1322. He was immediately venerated as a martyr and saint, but was never canonized.

464

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 7

That Tranquillity which is the Effect | of meer Violence is always fol. 322v precarious. The King who fancied that he had now mastered his People, expected no more Opposition to his Will and that of the Spencers, to whom he had again surrendered himself and them. They too blinded by so much Power and Success, used it, as before, wantonly, and affronted the Queen, the most terrible Enemy they could make. After many sensible Mortifications from these Men, she found Means to take ample Vengeance on them and their unhappy Master, her Husband, who had stupidly sacrificed all to their Tyranny, without excepting the Queen. With some Assistance from abroad and more at home she took the field against him, a Place where he had never made any Figure no more than in the Throne.28 All the Force that he had to resist her, though he had been long warned of her Designs, was that of a Proclamation, commanding his Subjects to fall upon her Followers.29 Subjects have no Motives to defend a Prince who oppresses them himself, and wants Capacity to protect them against the Oppression of others. The English as little regarded his Commands as he had their Persons and | Rights. Almost all who survived the late shocking fol. 323r Executions, abhorred him for having caused them. By such Executions he had only taught them to fear the like Fate, and to disable him, when they could, from destroying themselves. Even his own Brother, the Earl of Kent,30 joined the Queen. The poor King, who yet would not forsake his Favorites, upon whose Account chiefly he was forsaken, retired with them to the West, where none appeared for him. He, who whilst he was hated or despised, could find few Followers, could hope for none now he was reckoned lost. He was taken out of a lurking Hole in Wales, put in Custody, the Great Seal taken from

4 them B : his Kingdom A (fol. 310v) 18 had B : did A (fol. 310v) 27 could find B : found A (fol. 311r) 28

The size of the invasion force (in October 1326) was somewhere between fifteen hundred and seventeen hundred men. 29 The king had it proclaimed in London, Canterbury, and elsewhere, that anyone, traitors or homicides, who wished to come to him would receive litteras de pace from his chancery. 30 Edmund, the first earl of Kent (1301–30), was born at Woodstock in Oxfordshire, the son of Edward I and his second wife, Queen Marguerite.

The Reign of Edward II

465

him, and his Favorites hanged.31 The Queen, far from being opposed, was considered as a public Deliverer, and by that Title joyfully received into London. She there calls a Parliament, where the King is unanimously deposed, and his Son Prince Edward appointed King.32 The Charge against him was founded upon ‘his great Weakness, that he easily followed evil Councel, was incapable of Good; the fol. 323v Kingdom had greatly suffered from Losses and Disgraces, | particularly in Scotland and Ireland; by his Pride and Cruelty he had oppressed his People, and destroyed many valuable Lives; violated his Oath; consulted only how to please his own pernicious humour, and that of his Favorites; had abandoned his Trust, and was utterly incorrigible’. All this the Parliament declares to be notorious.33 The poor King submitted and resigned. He acknowledged that his misfortunes were just. ’Tis only Punishment that thus generally brings a sense of Guilt, which then comes too late; whereas an early sense of Guilt prevents Punishment. He professed a sensible Grief for the extreme Aversion of his People towards him. This Aversion as well as his own ill Fate that followed, he might have prevented with great Ease, and even with great Glory. Had he had no Favorites but his People (the surest and most powerful Favorites a Prince can make) he might have lived beloved and died lamented by them. Such Favorites far from wasting his Revenue, would have cost him nothing and always been able and willing to have assisted him. By a contrary fol. 324r Course he had a contrary Destiny, and his ruin naturally | followed his breach of Duty. So much is it the true Interest of Princes, and indeed of all men, to be just to their Trust. True and plain Morals will be always first or last too strong for all false Arts and Refinements.

31

5

10

15

20

25

Following a summary trial, on 27 October, the elder Despenser was drawn by horses, hanged, and then beheaded. On 16 November King Edward and Hugh Despenser the Younger were captured at Llantrissant. On 24 November Hugh was condemned as a traitor and thief, and sentenced to public execution. His genitals were cut off and burned. 32 The king agreed that his son should succeed to the throne. The young Edward, just over fourteen, was crowned on 1 February 1327. Edward II remained in prison. 33 A set of reasons for the royal deposition is recorded in Lambeth Palace MS 1213.

466

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 7

The Deposition of Edward, though his most disgraceful, was not his most painful Punishment. His death was as tragical as the Invention of ingenious Barbarity could render it. The Queen, who from infamous and criminal Motives only, and no one good Purpose or Principle, took advantage of his absurd and odious Reign, to join in Dethroning him, an Event which with all her Spirit and Malice she could not have accomplished had his Administration been just or even tollerable, found it necessary to cover one Iniquity with another and a worse: Adding the Guilt of Murder to that of Adultery, she employed Ruffians to destroy her Husband. This they did with infinite inhumanity, and with equal Cunning, in hopes to hide the Fact and their own Barbarity.34 But they were discovered, and after flying like guilty Vagabonds, suffered and died as became such bloody Instruments. Her own Doom and that of her Paramour, is only postponed, not evaded:35 In | the mean Time both live wretched in the fol. 324v constant Fear of it, and, to avoid it, are following Councels that only serve to heighten and to hasten it. Such is the Nature and Course of Wickedness. One evil Deed begets more, which, though meant to hide or secure the first Guilt, serves only to expose the Guilty to fresh Abhorrence and severer Vengeance. The aversion of the English to King Edward the second, turned after his Deposition into Pity; this begot some impotent Motions and Designs to restore him: When he was dead, they reverenced him as a Saint.36 Their Compassion generally attends the greatest Criminal. They consider only his Sufferings, and then forget all his Crimes. With such uncertainty and even contradiction do their Pas-

2 ⎡most⎤ 22 Motio⎡ns⎤ 34 According to the chronicler Geoffrey (le) Baker (fl. 1350), Edward II was brutally murdered in a way that left no visible mark on his body. 35 After the public announcement of the king’s death, Isabella and Mortimer’s rule was short lived. The turpis pax of Northampton with the Scots proved extremely unpopular. When Edward III came of age in 1330, he had Mortimer — Isabella’s lover and for three years de facto ruler of England — executed on fourteen charges of treason, the most important of which was the murder of Edward II. Isabella survived, and remained a wealthy and influential member of the English court, although she took no further active part in political affairs. 36 Edward’s end aroused such pity that the offerings left by pilgrims to his tomb in the abbey church of Gloucester were generous enough to pay for the complete remodelling of the east wing.

The Reign of Edward II

467

sions operate. Before his Fall, they were loud and vehement against his Misrule, his Falseness, his Cruelty, his Barbarity to the best Men, his Fondness for the worst. At a public Dinner in Westminster Hall, a Woman delivered him a Paper full of Invectives against him for Tyranny, Cowardice, and all the Mischiefs of his Reign; she owned 5 fol. 325r from whom she had it; and the Author, a | Knight, owned himself to have written it, thus to convey to the King, the Sense and Complaints of his People. The Fate of this Prince affords a glaring Lesson to all Princes, to reign justly and warily. Whenever they provoke their Subjects to fall 10 upon them, they can expect no Medium, but to overcome or perish; since the same Lot threatens all who fall upon them. They who dethroned Edward the second, were never secure till he was dead. It is remarkable that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury37 in his Sermon upon declaring Prince Edward King, urged the Voice of the 15 People to be the Voice of God.

7 to the King B : to him A (fol. 312v) 12 who fall B : who so fall A (fol. 312v) 37

Walter Reynolds (d. 1327).

Chapter 8

The Reign of Edward the Third. Son of Edward the Second fol. 355r Edward the third shewed very early a fine Spirit. He refused to

accept the Crown, though presented to him by universal Consent, unless his Father freely resigned it. An Event easily brought about, because his Father, now universally forsaken, as well as hated, durst not refuse. Yet, as all Minors however promising, are in the State of weak Princes, who, however old, are always Minors, that is, subject to those about them, many public Mischiefs were done under the Minority of that brave Prince. The Queen Mother and her Paramour fol. 355v Mortimer governed the King and all Things; and | governing for their own sake only, laboured to exalt and secure their Authority at the Expence and to the great Disgrace of the State. The scandalous Peace with Scotland;1 the Murder of the late King, the usurping the supreme Power from the twelve Barons appointed to administer it, were but ill Samples of their Regency, and all the following Measures were of a Piece with the first. The Queen supported her Adulterer Mortimer, Earl of March, who shews all the Arrogance, as he had usurped all the Essence of Power, riots in all the Excesses, in all the Insolence of Gaveston, and the Spencers, the late Objects of popular Hate and Pursuit; appears rather to exercise Sovereignty than to serve his Sovereign, is Master 1

5

10

15

20

After the deposition and murder of Edward II in 1327, Robert Bruce had invaded northern England and compelled Isabella and her lover to sign the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton in 1328. This recognized Scottish independence and acknowledged him as its king.

470

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 8

of the public Revenue and of all public Offices, raises and throws down at Pleasure, despises his Superiors and lays execrable but successful Snares against the blood Royal. The wantonness of Power is too strong for all Checks but the last. Mortimer might | have remembered the sad Fate, as well as what pro- fol. 356r duced it, the lawless and imperious Conduct of the late, nay the last Favorites, yet was pursuing their Measures. The Queen might soon dye, the King must soon be out of leading Strings; both might grow tired of him, led to it by his own extreme Insolence: Or popular Vengeance, perhaps the most dangerous of all, might suddenly fall upon him. But blinded with Pride and hardened with Crimes, he saw not the Approach of his own Fall, whilst by every Step he was earning and even hastning it. He therefore soon met it. The King will soon be apprized of his evil Conduct and Crimes, and in just wrath, get him apprehended, and surrendered to the Justice of Parliament, where he will be readily condemned; nay he will be condemned unheard, as will be explained hereafter. He and the Queen acted like almost all others, who gain Power by wicked Means: They strove to keep it by such Means as they acquired it; and as they held it only for their own sakes, they applied themselves, not to support the Public, but to make the Public support them. The Kingdom was no | further their Care than how to fol. 356v make it their Property. The name, and power and dignity, even the reputation and security of the young King, were employed only to fortify and aggrandize them against himself and his People. The same Policy might, and I doubt must have carried them still further. They had already murdered the late King her Husband, out of fear of his just Vengeance, and incurred so much dreadful Guilt, all to save themselves and to be able to commit more. They had still before their Eyes future Vengeance from the present King her Son, and were daily doing what served both to aggravate and to hasten it, by usurping and abusing his Power. So that they had all reason to dread him, when they could no longer lead and deceive him. He was advancing fast towards Maturity, with prompt Parts, high Spirit and great Notions of Kingship, Honour and Justice; a Character which could afford his Mother and Mortimer no pleasing Prospect. They could not but see their Ruin soon inevitable; and though the Queen might apprehend no rigorous | punishment, as she was the King’s fol. 357r

The Reign of Edward III

471

Mother; she was however sure of losing her power and her Paramour; severe Trials to a Lady of her Ambition and Gallantry. Mortimer himself had nothing to hope but a rigorous and exemplary Doom. We know what People in Power will do to preserve it: The worse they have got it and used it, the more they dread to lose it, and the more, sometimes the worst they will do to keep it. We know what People will do to save their Lives; the more guilty, perhaps the more determined, often so determined as to destroy many innocent ones, rather than lose their own. Nor is the love of Life the less dear for the possession of Power, but the higher and keener, and the more Means men have to preserve Life, the more they will use, and do all the Hurt they can, rather than suffer any. The Queen and Mortimer had shewn no Signs of Remorse or Amendment since the Assassination of poor Edward the second. They had the same Motives and stronger to get rid of Edward the fol. 357v third, nor could they expect but that sooner or later he | would revenge his Father’s barbarous Fate upon the Contrivers, as well as the present abuse of his own Authority, and the traiterous Plot against the Life of his Uncle the late Earl of Lancaster.2 But besides the preservation of their Lives and Power, by a timely stroke against the young King, they (especially Mortimer) had a Chance to increase it. The Royal Family was weak, all the Power in his and the Queen’s hands, and it might seem easie to assume the Name with the Thing. The Barons too were vastly reduced and weakened by the many cruel Executions and Confiscations under Edward the second. Could there be more powerful Motives to People full of Ambition, and possessed of Power, but in danger of losing both that and their Lives? It was therefore high Time for Edward the third to prevent such a wicked Stroke by striking a just one. He had been long blinded by them; and his Mother’s Credit with him had made him overlook the just Complaints and even the Manifesto of all the Great Barons lately

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 ⎡her2⎤ 5 ⎤ A comparison between the condition of England now and formerly, between England and arbitrary Countries, and between England and free Countries. ⎤ 2

Lancaster’s father, Edmund of Crouchback, was the younger brother of Edward I.

472

5

10

15

20

Chapter 8

associated for the Redress of Grievances,3 ‘the exorbitant Dowry of the Queen;* the exactions and encroachments of the Administration; | the infamy and injustice of the Peace with Scotland; the Non- fol. 358r execution of the Ordinance of Parliament for twelve Barons to govern during the Minority; The murder of the late King; the Seizure and Embezzelment of the public Treasure; the King’s Sister married to a public Enemy’.4 In answer to all which Charges (no otherwise to be answered) she maliciously persuaded her Son, that they who made them, only sought a Quarrel and intended to dethrone him. Thus incensed, he was even preparing to fall upon them; had she not taken wiser Advice than her own, and, for fear of seeing her own Guilt further exposed, and the whole Nation joining with the Barons against her; come to an insidious Agreement with the Lords, on full Design to destroy the Chief of them. The King afterwards listened to better Counsellors and truer Information, that ‘Mortimer not only exceeded the Condition of a Subject, but even out-shined his Sovereign; was Master of the Fortunes of all Men, pulling down and exalting whom he listed; all the Posts, all the Offices in the Realm in the hands of his Creatures; Edward the second | murdered privately, murdered by his Order; the fol. 358v Queen blindly in his Interest; both perhaps in a Scheme to keep the Son a perpetual Minor’. From all which he might perhaps himself infer something still more shocking from Minds so ambitious and Hands so bloody. He now too perceived what was likewise represen-

* It was above two thirds larger than the Revenue of the Crown.

20 murdered ... Order B : privately murdered by his order A (fol. 329r) 3 The barons, led by the Earls of Norfolk, Kent, and Lancaster, had formed a confederacy against Mortimer, the grasping Earl of March. Henry, the third earl of Lancaster, took the initiative, issuing a manifesto of eight articles against Mortimer, the idea being that he would have found it well-nigh impossible to respond to them before a Court of Justice. Isabella threw herself into her son’s arms, and tearfully insisted that Lancaster was making false accusations designed to undermine her. Edward seems to have believed her. After the mediation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the manifesto was withdrawn. 4 On 24 January 1328, Edward had married Philippa of Hainault. In July, in compliance with the terms of the Treaty of Northampton, his sister Joan of the Tower (1321–62) was married to David II of Scotland, the son of Robert Bruce.

The Reign of Edward III

473

ted to him, and had been hitherto hid from him, the innocence and the unjust Death of his Uncle the Earl of Kent, whom they had by a Train of subtle Wiles and Forgeries drawn into an Opinion, that his Brother King Edward the second was still alive, a Prisoner in Corf Castle, and thence into a Design to release him; and thus had brought the Earl under a Charge of High-Treason for which they took off his Head.5 The Queen and Mortimer were already possessed of so much Power, such Guards, and other Means of Defence, that whatever he had to fear from them, he found great Difficulties and Danger in securing them and consequently himself from them. He therefore staid for a proper Opportunity with great Secrecy and Silence, and took it whilst the Parliament was sitting at Nottingham, where fol. 359r whilst the King by their Contrivance and | Appointment was lodged with a contemptible Retinue in the Town, they two were quartered in the Castle, which was defended by a numerous and martial Guard; and, as further Security the Keys of the Castle were brought to the Queen every Night. All this shewed great suspicion, as guilty as well grounded. The King having gained the Governor entered the Castle by a subterraneous Passage in the Rock, accompanied by certain chosen Officers determined to risk their Lives for him: Perhaps his as well as theirs was at stake had they not succeeded. They were all saved by securing Mortimer: An Attempt so luckily conducted that only two Knights were slain in his Defence, and he dragged from his strong Hold through the same Passage, notwithstanding the Queen’s Tears and Prayers to spare the gentle Mortimer. She was thought then with child by him. What facilitated these the King’s Measures, was the sitting of the Parliament, a Parliament devoted to the Queen and Mortimer, who

5

10

15

20

25

6 High-Treason B : High Treason A (fol. 329v) 18 – 19 suspicion ... grounded B : suspicion proceeding from great Guilt, a proof of great Fear A (fol. 329v) 5

Earl Edmund of Kent had initially been loyal to Isabella and Mortimer but, like many others, soon became disillusioned. Tricked into believing what was nothing more than a rumour that his deposed half-brother Edward II was still alive, the Earl was executed in March 1330 for treason against his nephew King Edward III after he admitted plotting to release Edward II from captivity at Corfe Castle. He was beheaded by a convicted murderer in exchange for a pardon.

474

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 8

therefore could there and then the less apprehend any Designs of his against them. The King improved his Success by dissolving that Parliament, and called another, so carefully chosen as to be intirely disposed to serve him. The King representing to the Parliament the Crimes and Encroachments of Mortimer, | added without ceremony to his Name fol. 359v that of the Queen his Mother: So intirely had she forfeited all Respect both from her Son and his People, that he found it as popular as necessary to accuse her to their Representatives. There indeed could not be a blacker Character than hers. She was charged with the Murder of the King her Husband, with betraying the Honour and Interest of the King her Son, with much innocent Blood, particularly that of the Earl of Lancaster, with abusing public Trust and with private Prostitution and Adultery. A shocking Charge, the more so for being true. She therefore fell without Defenders, as she had transgressed without and beyond Excuse.6 But as criminal as she was, had she continued in Power she must have been still more criminal: She had got it and preserved it by a Course of crying Wickedness; and she could not have continued in it without committing more. Probably her Son would have been her next Victim, and with him all his best and ablest Counsellors and Adherents. I doubt the Love of Power and of Mortimer would have prevailed over her Love to her Son, whose Vengeance and Enmity, as she had earned it, she had reason | to fear. ’Twas no more than what fol. 360r other desperate and ambitious Mothers have done. Her Son however treated her with great Lenity, considering her Guilt; indeed with great Generosity. He only confined her to one of her own Houses,

1 any Designs B : any immediate Designs A (fol. 330r) 11 Husband, B : Husband; A (fol. 330r) 12 Son, B : Son; A (fol. 330r) 13 Lancaster, B : Lancaster; A (fol. 330r) 14 Adultery. B : adultery: A (fol. 330v) 6

After the Earl of Kent’s execution, Lancaster persuaded Edward III to assert his independence. In October 1330, a Parliament was called in Nottingham, just a few days before Edward came of age. Mortimer and Isabella were seized by Edward and his companions from inside Nottingham Castle, and Mortimer was imprisoned in the Tower, condemned without trial for having assumed royal power, and ignominiously hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 29 November 1330. His vast estates were forfeited to the crown.

The Reign of Edward III

475

and assigned her a large Pension for those Times, and for her now private Condition. Mortimer’s Fate was far different, indeed very cruel, without Decency, and, though a great Criminal, against Law. He was condemned for the Crimes above specified, and condemned unheard; a very illegal Sentence against a very guilty Man, as it might extend to the most innocent Man. It was a foolish as well as an unfair Plea, that his Crimes were notorious. They were then the more easily proved. Any, the worst, Crimes may be imputed to any Man, and by the Efforts of Art and Malice, and even of Folly so loudly imputed, as to be called notorious, though they be not true. Are Men to suffer for the Arts and Malice and Folly of others? False Accusations are often believed, the more easily believed if they be spiteful; and any bitter false Charge, which is always likely to be believed when it is boldly affirmed, will be called notorious by those who make it. And thus the v fol. 360 most innocent may suffer and perish like the vilest | Delinquents, when the Accusers become their Judges, and the Judges their Accusers. A guilty Man dying or suffering, only upon the notoriety of his Guilt, without admitting his Defence, makes a more dangerous Precedent than the Death or Sufferings of an innocent man can do. Innocence distressed or punished will always and at first find many to vindicate it: And, in time, all Men will own and condemn the Wrongs done to it: So that it will become unpolitic because unsafe to repeat such Wrongs, and to exercise Vengeance, where Vengeance is not due. It is like an alarm given to every innocent Man to look to himself, and for all honest Men to stand by one another. But when a guilty Man is punished, however unjustly, most men, even honest Men, especially such as suffered or feared to suffer by him, are apt to rejoice, and to approve at least to pardon the Sentence and manner of Punishment, though it have a direct Tendency to involve in it the most innocent and honest; nor can then any Man whatsoever, who has many Enemies, especially artful and powerful ones, escape. The Doom pronounced against Mortimer was universally fol. 361r approved and even applauded, | because he was universally hated.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

7 the most innocent Man. B : the most innocent. A (fol. 331r) 22 will ... at first B : will always, often at first, A (fol. 331r) 30 approve at least B : approve, at least A (fol. 331v)

476

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 8

What a Man deserves is never reckoned unjust. Mortimer certainly deserved Death; yet the Sentence against him was unjust; as it was denying him the natural Right of every Englishman faulty or faultless, and exposing all Englishmen to the Peril of the like unjust Sentence. It was however a Sentence of which he himself could not decently complain: He himself had hanged the Spencers with the same absence of Law and Form, hanged them for such Crimes as he was committing, continued to commit and was now hanged for having committed. As his Conduct had been like theirs, proud, oppressive and tyrannical, so was his End; and he was destroyed, just as he had destroyed them and others, without regard to Law, Right or Humanity. Crimes, as well as Virtue, find their own Reward; and there is a natural Providence connected with the Course of Things. Instead of pitying the Spencers for having been what most Men are apt to be, wanton with the Possession of Power without controul, he who was actually doing what they had done, aspiring to be what they had | been, and even then exercising upon them what they had fol. 361v exercised upon others, instead of considering that the very same Courses which brought them to their Fate, might bring him to such another, and that he was making such Enemies to himself, as they had made him and others to them, gave way to the present Impulse and his worst Passions, and rashly set an Example against himself. From thence forward he had gone on in the same furious Career, nowise warned by the tragical Success of theirs. There is nothing so dangerous as Success in Evil, as it excites Men to go on to do more. The same is true of the ill Use of laudable Success; it blinds and diverts Men from making right and good Use of it. In the Contents of Party, one Side not content with subduing the other, think they have done nothing unless they likewise destroy it. Thus the Spencers had proceeded against all their Opposers; thus Mortimer proceeded against the Spencers and their Party. The Spencers had been banished, and again recalled; but, not made wiser by their Sufferings, abused their good Fortune more than ever, though the like | abuse of it before had caused them to suffer. Upon their Re- fol. 362r establishment, they saw themselves so high that they thought it impossible for them ever to be lower; though even that height as

26 and ⎡to2⎤

The Reign of Edward III

477

they managed it presaged an equal Fall. Not content with the Massacre of their Opponents already mentioned, by which they had earned the Detestation of all Men living, as well as mighty Fortune and Power, they proceeded to destroy whomsoever they suspected, particularly this very Mortimer: He had been already sentenced to dye and was awaiting his Doom in Prison, but saved and pardoned by some secret Influence, probably that of the Queen.7 It was the Insolence of the Spencers that from Favorites had made them Exiles. It was the bold and intolerable abuse of their Victory over the contrary Party, that exposed them to second Vengeance and made their last Punishment worse than the first. By keeping no Measures with their Enemies, they drove them into the most formidable Measures, those of Despair, and fell themselves under them. With Moderation and reasonable Precautions they might have preserved themselves in their Posts and the King upon the Throne. fol. 362v | The same Coolness and Lenity, would in all likelihood have saved Mortimer and continued him in Power, had he been content with a reasonable Share. But Ambition that wants Bounds often wants Eyes. The very Steps which he took for his Advancement served to pull him down, as they had the Spencers and others before him, with many others after him. He, like them, besides engrossing Kingship, and mowing down, by Frauds and Violence, whoever had Merit and Credit enough to give him Umbrage and Offence, seemed to think himself Master of Fortune, and that though he acted like the Spencers, yet either saw not that their Actings were the Cause of their Fall, or presumed that with equal Guilt he should have better Luck and none of their Punishment.

5

10

15

20

25

7 by some ... Queen B : by the secret influence of the Queen A (fol. 333r) 22 done⎡wn⎤ 7

In 1321–22 Mortimer had been one of the leaders of a baronial revolt against Edward II and his favourite, Hugh Despenser the Younger (‘The Despenser War’). After being forced to surrender to the king at Shrewsbury in January 1322, Mortimer had been locked up in the Tower of London. In August 1323 he managed to escape to France, where he later met up with Queen Isabella, who was secretly trying to gain assistance from her brother, King Charles IV of France, to remove the Despensers. The scandal of Isabella’s relationship with Mortimer forced them to leave the French court and go to Flanders, where they secured the help of Count William of Hainault for the invasion of England.

478

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 8

It is hard to determine what was best or worst upon the whole. Perhaps it was good for England that Mortimer was so great a Criminal. Had he been less so; had his Treason and Evil Doings been less outrageous and fewer, he might have been a more successful Traitor by destroying the young King and seizing the Crown. Edward the third took warning from the Boldness and Openess of his Crimes, the sooner because they | were so bold and open, as well as so tran- fol. 363r scendant. Men, whilst they cannot see into Futurity nor into the Hearts of one another, can never discern their future Fortune, though many of them are vain enough to think that they can command and fix it; and thus, as possitive as blind, unwarned by the eternal Examples and by all the baffled Efforts of others before them, tread in the same Steps that lead to the same Disappointments. Good sometimes and often comes out of Evil, but rarely to the Authors of Evil. Mortimer, a Man possessed of so much Greatness, aiming at more, perhaps at the highest of all, a Man of high Condition and Quality, very noble in his Person, and very nobly allied, is executed like a common Felon, hanged, drawn and quartered: An End so abhorrent from all his grand Views and the ardent Pursuits of his Life, yet all conducing to produce it! An End which he once as little foresaw, as, when it came, he did or could foresee the future Restoration and Grandeur of his House, invested even with Sovereignty. If he himself had gained the Sovereignty, it is like his Race never would. Even the Rigour and Injustice of his Fate | were an Advantage to his Posterity and occa- fol. 363v sioned the Reversing of the Sentence pronounced against him, as far as it concerned them; a Favour to which they had no Claim, had he been fairly condemned after hearing, as doubtless he would have been. The Parliament which pronounced it, I guess, were far from foreseing an English King descended from an attainted Traitor, hanged upon the common Gallows. Yet so it happened to a Descendent of Mortimer’s.(a) Such Revolutions we ascribe to the Mutab-

(a)

This Descendent was Edward the 4th the son of Richard Duke of York by Ann Daughter of Roger Earl of March, Son of Edmond Mortimer Earl of March by Philippa Daughter of Lionel Duke of Clarence 3d Son of King Edward the 3d 7 – 8 transcendant B : transcendent A (fol. 333v) 18 allied B : allyed A (fol. 334r)

The Reign of Edward III

479

ility of Fortune, think them strange, and call them Chance; a name generally improper after they happen; since such Revolutions generally proceed from Causes as obvious as natural, and deserve to be called strange, only from their not having been foreseen. Our greatest and surest Light is from behind us, as by it we learn how little Light we can have of what is before us; that Good is, even in point of Interest, eternally preferrable to Evil; that the most shewy advantage, when basely gained, is none, or worse than none; that all wicked Courses naturally tend to unhappy Events; that no Success, no glare of Fortune, can banish Consciousness of Guilt, nor any Man confol. 364r scious of | Guilt be happy; that what is most laboriously got, may very soon and very easily be lost; that we can perpetuate no Acquisition whatsoever, and every unjust Acquisition is a Curse. I think all these Observations will hold when applied to Lord Mortimer, and to all who act like him. He must have found that every Step he took to be Great, must, as it was criminal, be unsafe; and the more Crimes the more Danger. Yet in his Pursuits, these were the only Steps he could take. So that he could not but be very unhappy, and the more so the further he advanced. It is the Lot of all ill Courses, and of all ill Men great and little. Edward the third who sprung from a very mean spirited Father, mean in the Head as well as in the Heart (Qualities that go often together) and from a Mother as vicious as violent, had a good Understanding, as well as a great Heart. Part of that Greatness, and no small part, was its Uprightness and Integrity, as much Integrity as I think compatible with the Character of a Conqueror. As the Grounds upon which a Conqueror proceeds are generally v fol. 364 unsolid, so his Proceedings must be violent; even | though he do not naturally love violent Proceedings. He must see, nay he must cause, the innocent to suffer, to famish and to dye. And if there be no guilty Persons amongst them, as who can be called so for defending their Property, their Homes, their native Laws and Soil, and their tenderest Pledges; then all his Ravages are against the innocent only. To obtain his Right, if he claim any but that of the Sword, what Ravages and Desolation must he commit, with innumerable Wrongs and

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

6 – 7 that ... preferrable B : that even in point of Interest, Good is eternally preferable A (fol. 334v)

480

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 8

Oppressions and Cruelties upon such as never injured, never provoked him? Strange that such Doings, such Curses and Calamities, the worst that can possibly befall human Nature and afflict the Creation, should entitle the Author of them to Glory! Yet Conquerors and all famed Heroes, even the best of them are the Authors of such dreadful Doings: Even Edward the third was so, though never accounted a bloody Man. It is not the quantity of Blood shed, but the manner of shedding it that brings Man under that Character and Imputation, how justly, I shall not now enquire. It is certain that such as have destroyed Millions, | have yet been considered as merciful Men, nay extolled for fol. 365r their Clemency, which was not reckoned stained or impaired by all that Slaughter. Cruel Men hurt private Families, and kill particular Persons. Conquerors only massacre Myriads and lay waste the World, and are still remarkable for their great humanity, because they shew no Malice to any one Man in it: Yet still the World is defaced and its Inhabitants butchered. Is it any difference to a dead Man whether the Author of his Death was animated by the love of Revenge or the love of Glory? Is it any Comfort to a Country ruined, or to a Town plundered and laid in blood and ashes, that all this was done by a very fine, very humane Man, who killed all, and destroyed every thing, but never hurt any Body, a Man who dealt in Death and Desolation, ripped up the Veins of human kind and swept away human Society, yet hated to commit any Injury, much more any Cruelty Let us not thus lump and confound Things and Characters. It is just to detest a single Murderer; but why adore a Conqueror, who forces Millions to perish? Let us compare the Good and the Bad of what he does. I | doubt the greatest of them would make but a sad fol. 365v Figure after such an Examination and Scrutiny. Individuals will have their Piques, their Fondnesses and Antipathies: But Society ought to judge of Men by the Good or Evil that Men do to Society, do to the whole. What Conqueror is there that does any Thing but Mischief, whether he succeed or not? If he succeed, this alone is Mischief enough; yet he must do more Mischief, and secure by further Oppressions those whom he has already oppressed. If he do not succeed,

17 differa⎡e⎤nce

The Reign of Edward III

481

’tis odds but he has still done Mischief enough by attempting it, by many Lives sacrificed and many Miseries brought upon the invaded and the Invaders. Indeed an insensibility of human Woes seems to be a necessary Qualification in a Conqueror. Laurels and mighty Fame engross his Heart, and obstruct all the Avenues to Compassion. Nor doth the Possession of Laurels quiet him, he still wants more, and as nothing can satisfy him, but a continual Acquisition of Fame, whilst he lives, he will be conquering or seeking to conquer, that is be the constant Plague and disturber of the World and an unrelenting Destroyer of Men. fol. 366r | Were a Conqueror to propose mending the Condition of the conquered, there are ten to one against him that he miscarries, and does them infinitely more harm than he possibly can Good. In truth hardly any Conqueror has any such aim. Charles the twelfth of Sweden had no thought of mending the Condition of Poland or Muscovy in his War upon those Countries. He wanted to depose the two reigning Princes, to chuse a new King of Poland, and a new Czar of Muscovy. In the Keenness of his Vengeance against the King of Denmark, he shewed, as upon many Occasions he had done, how little he felt the loss or misery of his own brave and faithful Subjects: When he saw them falling through Famine, or stiffening and expiring by Batallions, with Cold, in the rigorous Mountains of Norway, reckoned unpassable at that Season of the Year, always very dreadful in the bleak Regions of the North, he still advanced with the miserable Remains, more miserable than the former, as Death had not yet come to their Relief.8 But I leave this Subject of Conquests, as I have already largely v fol. 366 treated it in my Observations upon the Reign of William the | Conqueror, as likewise in one of my Discourses upon Tacitus.9 I shall

5

10

15

20

25

2 sacrificed B : sacrificed, A (fol. 336v) 8

In 1700, King Frederick of Denmark, King Augustus of Poland (Elector of Saxony), and Czar Peter of Russia acted in accord to cripple Sweden. Fourteen years of campaigning combined with bad harvests and several years of the plague reduced Sweden to a state of destitution. In the final years of his reign Charles raised an army to invade Norway (then part of Denmark). In the course of his second attempt to take the country, he was shot in the head and died instantly. He was thirty-six years old. 9 Gordon, ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, x, ‘Of Armies and Conquest’.

482

5

10

15

20

25

30

10

Chapter 8

only add here, that Conquerors and Persecutors have turned the best Parts of the World into Desarts, and reduced most of the Inhabitants, whom they left yet in it (very few compared with those whom their Violence has sent out of it) into beastley Bondage, Ignorance and Brutality. For Persecutors are a sort of infamous Conquerors, such as would subdue or banish Conscience; a much more guilty Task than that of subduing the Persons and even taking away the Lives of Men. Edward the third was surely a great Man, a great Hero, and as honest a Man as a Conqueror could be. I do not doubt but it was with Reluctance that he broke through his natural Candour, ever cleaving to great Minds, in the private Protestation which he made before his Council, that notwithstanding the Homage which he was obliged to do to the King of France for Guienne and Ponthieu, he would still pursue his Claim to that Crown, which by such Homage he owned to belong to King Philip, and therefore renounced in effect any Pretensions of his own to it. Yet all this while he was meditating War, and even | resolved upon it; but, ’till he was ready, con- fol. 367r tinued in his Course of Dissimulation, had an interview with Philip, gave him fair pacific Promises, made a solemn Treaty with him, and even received great Favours from him. He likewise submitted to the Decision given in France in favour of Philip’s Title.10 Towards Scotland he carried his Deceit still further. Though David the Scottish King was his near Relation, and he was further engaged to him by the sacred Ties of Treaties, which he promised faithfully to observe; though he openly declared against Baliol that King’s Rival, yet he underhand suborned that very Baliol to attack him, and anon openly helped that very Baliol to dethrone him. His Pleas for such ill Faith and Falsification, were rather unworthy Pretences, irreconcilable to Honour and Justice, and even to natural

In 1337, Philip VI of France had confiscated the English king’s duchy of Aquitaine and the county of Ponthieu. In response, Edward laid claim to the French crown, on the grounds that he was the only remaining male heir of his maternal grandfather, Philip IV (Queen Isabella’s father). The French, however, invoked the Salic law of succession, and rejected the claim. They proclaimed Philip IV’s nephew, Philip VI, to be the true heir, thus paving the way for the Hundred Years’ War.

The Reign of Edward III

483

Tenderness and Pity. For David was a Minor and married to his Sister, both soon afterwards Royal Exiles seeking support in France.11 But ambition considers natural Tenderness as Weakness, when standing in its Way, and the Laws of Morality as Niceties too low to fol. 367v obstruct it. | The Heart of a Conqueror must be hardened and armed as well as his hand; and in his full Pursuit of Crowns and Empire, is it likely that Consanguinity or Pity should alter him; that Right or Justice should stop him; that any Object of Compassion will affect one who is exposing thousands to perish, or that any Pleas of Right will be heard in the Uproar of Swords and Artillery, the last, the best, indeed the only prevailing Arguments of a Conqueror? Tacitus ridicules a learned Man who in the heat of the Civil War, set himself to reason with the Soldiery, just then intent upon Spoil and Slaughter, and actually marching to Rome to sack it.12 When a Kingdom is the Prize, what reasoning will stay the bold Adventurer? The Saying in Euripides, I think, out of the Mouth of a Usurper, will serve for all such as well as for Cæsar, who was fond of quoting it: ‘If Laws and the Rights of Men are ever to be violated, they are to be violated for the sake of Reigning’.13 As the Conquest of France was a very great Undertaking, King fol. 368r Edward though a young Man, took all proper Measures to | succeed in it, by great Alliances abroad, good Government at Home, and great Levies of Men. After all, the Risk was very great, his own Expence prodigious, that particularly to his Allies certain, though their Faith and Succours to him were very uncertain, and therefore the Success at best precarious. The English were brave and forced to fight their Enemy in their Enemy’s Country; a manifest Disadvant-

5

10

15

20

25

1 – 2 11

The elder son of John Balliol, king of Scots (r. 1292–96), Edward Balliol (c. 1283–1367) had been held captive with his father in England and later exiled with him in France. In 1324, Edward II brought him back from exile to act as a rival to Robert I. During the minority of David II, Edward Balliol invaded Scotland with English assistance, won a crushing victory against the Scots at the Battle of Dupplin in Perthshire on 12 August 1332, and was made King of Scots at Scone on 24 September. But less than three months later, he was forced to flee south again. After several further attempts to assert his power, he finally resigned his claim to the Scottish throne in January 1356. 12 Tacitus, Historiae, 3. 81. 13 Cicero, On Duties, III. 82 (on Caesar quoting The Phoenician Women, a tragedy by Euripides).

484

5

10

15

20

25

30

14

Chapter 8

age and Discouragement. Nor was the Quarrel so interesting to the English, who were but Champions for a Title to their King, as to the French who considered their Country and their all at Stake. The securing of his Allies, after he had got them, gave him great Difficulty, and he kept a great and very fine Army abroad the first Year with little or no other Fruit than to humour and defend these Allies. Amongst them all, though some of them of very high Name, a Brewer of Ghent was the most useful and consequently the most important,14 far beyond the very greatest of them, even the Emperour of Germany,15 who after mighty parade and grand imperial Promises, acquitted himself poorly, and soon after left him, without | having ever assisted him. Most of the other Princes fol. 368v followed the Emperor in that Defection. Edward after such great Efforts, and an Expence so vast that besides borrowing Money on every side and on all Hands, he was obliged to pawn his Crown; yet hitherto had made no Progress. He could not bring the French to a Battle, nor gain a Town: He saw himself baffled in the Siege of Tournay, after he had carried it on for three Months. He was even reduced to make a Truce. All this was the more mortifying as it was now the third Year since he began his Enterprize, and his second Campaign in France, and after he had seen himself this very Year at the head of such an Army as never had been commanded by any King of England, an Army of an hundred and fifty thousand Men. He returned to England without having gained an inch of Land of France. He only brought over with him the Arms and Title of France, which he had assumed by the Advice of the Burgess of Ghent, James D’Arteville, the Brewer above named. He had still but one Kingdom, though another Royal Title, one of so little profit | to England, that England was so much the poorer for it, in fol. 369r proportion to all his mighty Expences and Losses. He and the Na-

Jacob van Artevelde (c. 1290–1345), a Flemish statesman, came from a wealthy Ghent family. The count of Flanders’ pro-French policy in the war between Edward III and Philip VI of France resulted in the blocking of English wool imports, which ruined the Flemish merchants and weavers. Ghent rebelled, and Artevelde was given dictatorial powers as the head of the city government. In 1345 a riot broke out in the city, and Artevelde was killed by the mob. 15 Louis IV, the Holy Roman Emperor, had made an alliance in 1337 with Edward III against Philip VI of France, the protector of the new Pope Benedict XII in Avignon. However, in 1341, Louis abandoned Edward, though he only temporarily came to terms with Philip.

The Reign of Edward III

485

tion had one Cause of Triumph from a prodigious Defeat given by the English Fleet to that of France on the Coast of Flanders. Two hundred and sixty English Vessels sunk, took and destroyed four hundred French; all except thirty. In this Combat the first that he had ever seen, and the greatest, on our Seas, that ever had been seen, the young King did Wonders both in the point of Valour and Ability, and his men imitated and obeyed their King. ’Tis reckoned that thirty thousand French perished, a number that seldom falls on one Side in the fiercest Encounters of the greatest Armies, perhaps not on both sides. A dreadful Allarm to France! Nor was it wonderful that none of the King’s Ministers but his Buffoon (for he proved his best Minister on this Occasion) durst acquaint him with it. He entered into the King’s Presence with loud and vehement Reproaches upon the English, as base Cowards who dared not behave like the brave French and leap like them into the Sea by thousands. fol. 369v | The Brewer of Ghent deserves a Remark. He had gained his Influence and great Power not only there but in all the principal Cities and Towns of Flanders, by espousing the Interest and Priviledges of the People against the Incroachments and Oppressions of the Earl their Prince. This his Zeal for the People made him so popular, and his popularity so powerful, that he drove out the Earl to seek the Protection of France, from whence probably he had his Encouragement to oppress them, and then assumed and exercised higher Sovereignty than the Earl had ever done. He seized and applied at his pleasure the Prince’s Rents and Revenues, was attended with a Body of Guards, who slew upon a Signal, without further enquiry or process, whomsoever he pleased: He banished all the Lords whom he suspected, and doomed to the same Fate or a worse whomsoever his Spies, whom he every where entertained, represented as worthy of his distrust. In drawing his Sword against the Prince he had gone too far not to go farther, done too much not to do more, and by having openly fol. 370r opposed the progress of Tyranny, was | become a terrible Tyrant. It is not probable that he at first had Thoughts of making so ill a Use of so good a Beginning. This shews that the Violence of Governors is to be resisted with Wisdom, and if possible without Violence; since this may prove a Remedy worse than the Disease. As too feeble Attempts against Oppression prove often worse than none, and by not suc-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

486

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 8

ceeding, only serve to encourage the Oppressor; so, violent Attempts, though they succeed against one Oppressor, yet if they raise up another, are generally worse than none: Since he having nothing but Violence to trust to, will proceed with Violence, like James d’Arteville, who could not, as the Prince could have done, depart from violent Measures and yet be safe. He was certainly a Man of Spirit and Abilities: His advice to Edward the third to take the Title of France, was founded upon politic Reasons, such as had their Effect at the Time. James held his sway a long Time: He was at last murdered by his former Champions and Adorers, the Populace, always violent both in their love and their hate, for his Attempt to make Edward’s eldest Son Duke of | Flanders. Had he succeeded in fol. 370v it, I do not see how he himself could have been safe. Usurpers have rarely any Choice but to go on, which yet they seldom can long. Perhaps he formed his last Project in order to continue in Power under that Prince, as well as to secure himself under such grand Protection. The great and steady Spirit of Edward the third was not dismayed with all his late Difficulties, Losses, Expences and Disappointments. Again he would try his Fortune in the same Field and on the same Quarrel, now heightened by some fresh Incidents and new Provocations. He took now a surer and shorter Way of conducting the War. All that he had gained by his late many and high Alliances, was to find that they were very expencive and very useless, caused him many Delays, and yielded little or no Assistance. Though therefore he had still many Foreigners in his Army, he had them independently of their several Sovereigns, upon his own Terms, as he could agree with the Individuals and consequently always under his own Command. | His Speech, and his Behaviour to his Army just as he was going fol. 371r to embark, were fine. He declared that as soon as he landed, he would send back his Ships: So that they had no choice but to conquer or perish; or to stay behind, for which he gave as many as liked it free leave. It was the Declaration of a magnanimous Prince to a magnanimous Army, and received with universal Cries of Joy and Consent. From their first landing he led, and they followed with wonderful Bravery; and it was that only which saved them from the Beginning. He had not been many Days in France, committing in his March infinite Ravages and destroying the Country as he passed, before he found himself enclosed between two Rivers, and was

The Reign of Edward III

487

apprized that the French King was advancing at the head of an hundred thousand Men to take advantage of his Distress and destroy him in it. This method that King took to answer the Challenge, which the English King had sent him. Edward received the Intelligence and discovered his own Danger almost too late. He had but one Way to escape, by passing the Somme fol. 371v to take shelter in Ponthieu; but where | to pass it he know not. After he had marched several Miles along its Banks to no purpose, in Search of a fordable Place, by accident and the Direction of a Prisoner, well acquainted with the Country, he found one, but one guarded on the other side by twelve thousand French. In spight of these he undertook it, passed with incredible Vigour, and routed the Enemy almost before he reached the Shore. What might not be expected from such a King and such an Army? It was a fine Presage of the Victory at Cressy next Day.16 That Battle, still proverbial as well amongst the French as the English, carried in it astonishing Marks of the English Courage. The French were an hundred thousand strong; the English not a third of that number; and of that small number one third never fought, nor had occasion. It was here that the Prince of Wales, famous afterwards under the name of the Black Prince, young as he was, shewed himself a Hero of the first Magnitude. He was but sixteen Years old, and had never seen a Battle, yet won this. Nor could his excellent Father give a higher Proof of Heroism or Tenderness, than not to engage himself fol. 372r in | it, that all the Glory might remain to the Son; whence the Father therefore reaped a double Portion. After the Battle King Edward shewed that he had another Species of Greatness besides Valour, I mean that of Humanity, without which there can be no true Greatness in Man. He knew what Wantonness naturally followed Success; and to moderate the Flights of Joy, and curb the Scorn usual to Conquerors, published an Order in the Camp, ‘strictly to forbear and

16

5

10

15

20

25

30

The River Somme proved to be an insuperable barrier. The bridges were heavily defended or down, and the English were forced to march down the left bank to the sea. They eventually managed to cross the mouth of the river at low tide, narrowly avoiding the pursuing French. Edward’s troops made camp in the Forest of Crécy on the north bank of the Somme. The Battle of Crécy took place on 26 August 1346. One of the English army’s three divisions was commanded by Edward III’s sixteen-year-old son, Edward the Black Prince, an outstanding military commander.

488

5

10

15

20

25

30

17

Chapter 8

avoid any Insult over the Misfortunes of the vanquished, and to return thanks for the Victory to God, who was the Author of it’. His Care concerning the Dead and Wounded extended to the Enemy as well as to his own Men; and upon his investing Calais, when the Governor drove from thence such as served only to consume the Provisions there, near two thousand Souls,17 the King prompted only by his Goodness, received them mercifully into the Camp, filled their Bellies, gave them money, and leave to retire whither they would. His solid and generous Mind was not exalted nor vitiated by Fame and Conquest. He was sensible, and strove to make his Army sensible of the uncertain Issue of every, the | highest Pursuit, and of fol. 372v all Things below; that Merit was not to be measured by Fortune; since that of the bad is sometimes Good, that of the latter often bad; and taught them both by his Orders and Example, so to treat the vanquished as if they themselves had been so. They might indeed easily remember the late very threatning Danger they had been in, whence they might, without surprizing luck, have been destroyed, in spight of their Valour, by those very Men, whom they had now by their Valour destroyed. Victory is not always to the brave. One Victory cannot ensure another, and nothing is so changeable as the Course of war: Besides the power of France, and of such other Powers as might join with France, as some of their own late Allies had done, they had the animosity and Forces of David the Scottish King to apprehend. This Prince soon after invaded England at the Head of a great Army, and had he not been defeated by the English Army under the Queen, might by his Progress in England, have forced King Edward out of France. David had more Merit than Fortune. He was long distressed, and was | even forced into Exile, whilst he was yet a Minor. A Crown fol. 373r instead of protecting him, involved him in Calamities, and King Edward, though his Brother-in-law, proved his capital and mortal Foe. He had therefore a Quarrel of his own to invite him into England, beside the Call of his good Ally the King of France. He behaved himself with unconquerable Resolution in the late Battle. When he

The Siege of Calais (1346–47). As supplies of food and fresh water in the city had nearly run out, hundreds of children and elderly people were expelled from the city to enable the survival of the remaining healthy adult men and women.

The Reign of Edward III

489

had done all that Man could do, saw the Day lost, himself surrounded, no view of escaping, his Sword beat out of his hand, two Spears sticking in his Body, one of his Legs utterly disabled by a terrible wound, he became eager to dye, to avoid Captivity, and therefore strove by fierce Words to provoke the English to kill him. Insomuch that when an Officer advanced to take him Prisoner, he struck the Officer so furious a Blow with his Gauntlet, as to beat out two of his Teeth. Fortune was stronger than any Courage or Device of His: He was and remained the Queen of England’s Prisoner.18 A new Augmentation of Glory accrued to Edward from the taking of Calais, in presence and defiance of the French King at the fol. 373v head | of an hundred and fifty thousand Men, come purposely to relieve it. He here in his turn refused to accept a Challenge from Philip, but offered to raze his own Trenches and meet him in the Field, if he could be secure that no Succours the while should enter the Town. Indeed all Things, except his own great Soul, gave way to his Fortune. He saw himself the Idol of his own People, and the Terror and Delight of all Christendom; saw his Court full of Embassadors, and amongst other high Tenders and Compliments, was offered the Imperial Throne of Germany then vacant: But cool and deliberate amidst Flattery and Prosperity, he confined his Ambition to more substantial Pursuits, and rejected the mighty Offer. No foolish considerable Prince, governed by Vanity, would have rejected it. The late immortal Lewis would not; fond as he was of the name of Hero without the Qualities, forward to promote Fighting, afraid of being in it. He seems to have taken the Measure of his Ambition from his Disabilities: No wonder that his Ambition was extreme. His ill Faith, r fol. 374 lying Panegyrists, and the Misfortunes of Europe, made him a | Conqueror. It is as lamentable, as ’tis Disgraceful to the Creation, that so low a Character should have been able to do so much Mischief, or at all to disturb the World. Yet it is what the lowest Implements can do and have done, Cowards, Buffoons, Sycophants, Old-women, Pedants and Harlots.

18

5

10

15

20

25

30

In 1346, under the terms of the Auld Alliance with France, David II of Scotland had invaded England to further French interests. However, he was defeated and captured at the Battle of Neville’s Cross, and taken to the Tower of London.

490

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

19

Chapter 8

Edward the third was so attentive to the Calls of Honour, and to what is the tenderess Part of a Prince’s Honour, the good and protection of his People, that he went in Person to destroy a Nest of foreign Pyrates that infested the Coasts, and effected it with his usual Spirit and Success. During the Truce died Philip the French King, whose Bravery might have claimed better Success against any other Foe but Edward the third and the Black Prince, unquestionably the greatest Heroes of that Age, equal to the greatest of any other Age, and followed by Troops who had no where their Fellows, certainly not in France where, though the Officers, that is the Nobility and Gentry, have always been valiant, the common People, consequently the common Soldiers, as they are reached in miserable | Want and Slavery, will fol. 374v prove in the Field, what they are at Home, weak and heartless. In a close Fight where strength and resolution are necessary, they can make no Resistance, nor are able to stand before the English. From hence it comes to pass that in most if not all the Routs given them by the English, the number of Soldiers slain bore no proportion to that of the Officers. Particularly in the Battle of Poitiers there fell only six thousand common Men, but near nine hundred Officers, many of them Men of high Rank and Condition.19 This was the first considerable Action after the Recommencement of the War, one of the most extraordinary Actions that ever happened in any War, and in it the Black Prince acquired Renown equal to that of any of the most celebrated Heroes in any of their most celebrated Combats. He was surprised at the head of ten or twelve thousand Men, no more than three thousand of them English, by John the now French King at the head of sixty thousand, and had Conditions of surrender offered him, but such as seemed to him worse than Death, as they were hurtful to his Honour. His infinite Courage that Day was | equalled by nothing but his wise Orders and fol. 375r Conduct. He fought as if fighting only had been his Duty: He commanded as if he attended only to command. All heard his Orders and cheerfully obeyed them; all saw his Example and resolutely followed it. It was thus a little Army of Black-Princes: What Num-

The Battle of Poitiers was fought on 19 September 1356. It was the second of the three great English victories in the Hundred Years’ War, together with Crécy and Agincourt.

The Reign of Edward III

491

bers could contend with such an Army? The French could not, though they at first considered it as a Band of Prisoners. They resolutely attacked it, were utterly repulsed, utterly routed and vanquished, and their King taken prisoner, after having courageously done his Duty through the whole Conflict. The numbers of the Enemy slain I have already mentioned. Besides the King and his Son Philip,20 and the common Prisoners (equal in number to the English Army) and besides Earls, there were fifteen hundred Barons, Knights and Esquires taken in this Fight. The Prince, though still a young Man, manifested after the Battle all the Humanity, Moderation and Generosity of his Father, as he had all his Ability and Spirit in it. He entertained the French King v fol. 375 with so much Bounty, so much Respect, and even | with such Distance, he condoled and complemented him so politely, that that Prince congratulated himself upon such a glorious Mitigation of his Captivity, as it was to be his Captive. In his Thanks to his Troops, he ascribed all his Success to their Bravery, nor once mentioned himself. His whole Behaviour was indeed so amiable and extraordinary, that his Father declared to have received more Pleasure from it than even from so glorious Victory. He persisted in the same modest Behaviour upon his Return to England, after having concluded a Truce for two Years, refusing all Honours offered to himself, yet doing and procuring all such to the captive King, who was likewise royally and indeed tenderly entertained by King Edward. From hence may be guessed with what gentleness and generosity the other Prisoners were treated according to their several Conditions. At the End of the Truce Edward renewed his Efforts for the intire Conquest of France, and again entered that Kingdom at the Head of an hundred thousand Men. Besides his Advantages from such a fol. 376r Force, from his late Victories and Conquests, from the Terror | of his and his Son’s Name, from the Bravery of the English and the general Consternation of the French; that Kingdom was in a desperate Situation; deserted by many of its own Vassals and Allies; the King a Prisoner; most of the best Officers taken or slain; the Forces which

20

5

10

15

20

25

30

King John II of France had succeeded his father Philip VI in 1350. His youngest son Philip acquired his cognomen ‘the Bold’ after he fought alongside and was captured with his father at the Battle of Poitiers. He was just fourteen years old.

492

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 8

remained, weak, disheartened, yet unruly and plundering the Country; the Government despised and nothing seen but a general Anarchy; the Great oppressing the Small, the Small in Arms against the Great; an Army of Peasants made so mad by Oppression as to become professed Levellers, vowing and pursuing the utter Extirpation of all that were above them, consequently of all Government, and become so strong that all the regular Troops were not thought too many to encounter them. Yet with all these Advantages Edward and his mighty Host made no effectual Progress: He only did a World of mischief to that unhappy People without any Good to himself. He spoiled, wasted and burnt all the open Country, but could take no considerable Towns; and the Regent was too wise to meet him in the Field, and venture any more Battles. He acted like Fabius Maximus, and | the fol. 376v Event answered his slowness and patience. Edward thus frustrated in his Designs upon Paris, the Kingdom and the Crown, yielded to a Treaty, the famous Treaty of Bretigny, which contained Terms suitable to the Circumstances of both Kings, beneficial to both Kingdoms, certainly very seasonable and salutary to that of France.21 Edward was a Man of Business and a good Ruler as well as a great Captain, a Character not always found in the same Person. After the Peace he applied himself to Affairs of Government, passed many good Laws and confirmed Magna Charta. He likewise, as became a heart truly Royal, great and benevolent like his, published a general Pardon, for the Quiet and Ease of all his Subjects, even of such as had most offended him; for, he excepted not Offences of Treason. It was in his excellent Reign that Treason itself, formerly so vague and undefined, as to be made a usual Engine by artful Men to destroy innocent Men, even for harmless Words, Jests and Follies, and sometimes for their Virtue and best Actions, was explained and restrained

1 – 2 unruly ... Country B : unruly, and, instead of defending, plundering the Country A (fol. 346r) 28 a usual B : an usual A (fol. 347r) 21

The Treaty of Brétigny was signed on 8 May 1360. It did not lead to lasting peace, but provided nine years’ respite from the war. It is retrospectively considered to have marked the height of English hegemony on the Continent.

The Reign of Edward III

493

fol. 377r to a clear and safe | Sense.22 Such Justice and Mercy became each

other, as they did him from whom they flowed, one who was both King and Father of his People. His Reputation for Honour, in which veracity must be for ever implied, was so high and so singular, that even Kings trusted themselves freely and by Choice in his Court and Power; a Complement that Kings, even such as have the least Jarrings and Interfering, seldom pay to one another. Yet Kings whom Edward had used the worst, Kings whom he had invaded, beaten and taken Prisoners, Kings whose Countries and Crowns he claimed, King John of France and King David of Scotland, after all this severe usage, and a Ransom upon hard Terms, left their own Courts and Dominions, to visit Edward in his. These two Princes seem to me to have shewn themselves, as well as thought him, men of Honour; who as they meant no base Artifice by it, feared none from it. He convinced them, by his treatment of them, how worthy he was of their Confidence in him. He had the Credit to entertain at the same Time two other Kings. The poor French King, after some Months stay died here, | here, fol. 377v as it were in Edward’s Houshold, since he was maintained at his expence all the while, and now highly lamented by him as a worthy and accomplished Prince his Friend, who had manifested such Faith in him. Behind him he left the Remembrance of a Saying of his to his own everlasting Honour, and the Instruction of all Princes upon Earth, that ‘Truth, though ’twere banished from all the World besides, ought still to be found in the Words of Kings’. It is surely their Interest that it should, as well as their Virtue when ’tis; since where they, who ought to be an Example to others, shew none, they can expect none. ’Tis Weakness, as well as Assurance in a Prince who wants good Faith, to upbraid his Subjects or Allies, or even his Enemies for wanting it; and I think ’tis plain that King John would have just dealt with King Edward as King Edward dealt with him. We now behold King Edward enjoying in Peace the Fame and Acquisitions of a Conqueror, and, which is more amiable and interesting, the Love or rather Adoration and Applause of his People for fol. 378r his excellent | and paternal Administration; Magna Charta observed, 22

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

The Treason Act of 1351 (25 Edw. III St. 5 c. 2) codified and curtailed the common law offence of treason.

494

5

10

15

20

25

23

Chapter 8

or restored and confirmed, as ’twas ten Times during this Reign; the Laws in force and reverenced, Grievances redressed as soon as complained of, Manufactures and Industry encouraged, public Liberty secured, clerical Oppression restrained, the impious Claims and insatiable Cravings of the Pope baffled and stigmatized, and the name of England glorious throughout the World. The wisdom and fatherly Spirit of Edward was not confined to England, but extended to his Subjects in France. The Black Prince, gracious like him as well as brave, governed Aquitaine, of which he was Duke, with the same mildness, the same Ability, and therefore with the same Popularity. He resided at Bourdeaux, and kept a spendid Court there. Over his other Dominions in that Kingdom, Edward had appointed Sir John Chandos, a brave Officer, an able Councellor, and a prudent Governor,23 who pursuing the Maxims and Interest of his Royal Master, made all his Subjects there easie and happy under their new Sovereign. It is a Pleasure to dwell upon | Subjects so delightful as the many fol. 378v Glories and many Blessings of this great King’s Reign. It is therefore with Regret that I pass to the latter Part of his Reign, by no means equal in Felicity to the former. I am sorry I cannot say, that no ground was given on his or his heroic Son’s part to draw upon them their following Misfortunes. It was no better than the Cause of one of the worst Princes and consequently one of the worst Men upon Earth, Peter of Castile, then and still justly stiled the Cruel.24 He had butchered so many of his greatest Subjects for the sake of their Blood and Estates, that the rest to save themselves, at the head of the Commonalty, whom he had mercilessly oppressed, freed the Country from this Monster of Rapaciousness and Barbarity, remarkable only for every detestable Quality and Pursuit, treachery, assassination,

Sir John Chandos (d. 1369), constable of Aquitaine and seneschal of Poitou. The (First) Castilian Civil War, between the reigning king, Peter, and his illegitimate brother Henry of Trastámara, lasted three years, from 1366 to 1369. In 1366, Henry, with the support of the kings of France and Aragon, put Peter to flight. Peter subsequently returned to Castile with English troops led by the Black Prince, and re-established his authority in 1367, after victory at the Battle of Nájera. Bertrand du Guesclin (c. 1320–1380), a celebrated French military commander at the head of a mercenary force operating in Spain on behalf of Henry of Trastámara, was captured. After being ransomed by Charles V of France, Du Guesclin helped Trastámara to finally gain the Castilian crown in 1369. 24

The Reign of Edward III

495

spoil and poysoning. The Black Prince however undertook the Cause of one so unlike himself; and, which is perhaps worse than undertaking it, he succeeded in it. We will suppose that he did not at first know that Cause to be so bad. It is likely he had as plausible a Represfol. 379r entation made to him | from Peter as he certainly had many copious Promises. The Black Prince entering Spain did as usual and performed Wonders, ’tis pity to no better purpose. He utterly overthrew the joint Army of Castilians and French, vastly superiour in number to his own. What heightened his Glory, here he took Prisoner the great Hero of France the famous Du Guesclin, with a French Marshal. He was requited for all not as he deserved, but as he might have expected. Peter as mean and false as he was bloody, fell at his Feet after the Victory, with Thanks too profuse to be sincere. The Prince with his usual sedateness and self denyal, desired him to transfer his Thanks from the Instrument to God the Author of the Victory. The insensible Tyrant, after his Restoration, far from keeping any one of his Engagements, barbarously withheld from the Army all the Assistance of Money or Provision, starved numbers of them with false Hopes, and forced the rest, weak and sickly as they were, to retire for fear of starving: A deadly Wound to the Heart of the Engv fol. 379 lish | Hero, but the natural Reward of Heroism so ill applied. Here too he contracted a Distemper which embittered his Days and shortened his Life. But these are not all the ill Consequences to England from this unhappy Adventure, which probably arose from the Prince’s impatience to be idle, and from a fondness for War and Conquest. Such a Loss of Men in Spain with that of his own Health, facilitated the Reconquest, which soon followed, of all the English Provinces in France. The insincerity of Edward the third before the Beginning of the War, was now amply repaid by Charles the fifth, who kept no one Engagement longer than ’till he could break it, and in doing it observed no sort of restraint, or faith, or even of Decency. He had but one Rule, that, of most Invaders, to get all that he could, no matter how.

11 Du Guesclin, with B : Du Guesclin with A (fol. 349r) | and another ⎡with a⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

496

5

10

15

20

25

30

25

Chapter 8

Edward the third was old, and after all his Experience, suffered himself to be amused and deceived, the more easily for that he was unprepared. The brave Black Prince was languishing out the short Remainder of his Days, and forced to return to his native Air. The Allies of | King Edward, in his declining Years and Fortune chose, or fol. 380r were forced to forsake him. The Exploits of the Duke of Lancaster, though brave and rapid, served to desolate France without gaining any substantial Advantage, much less any strength or establishment to England there. Edward was therefore forced to stoop to Peace, and of all his many and extensive Conquests gained with such waste of Lives and Treasure, remained Master only of Calais.25 Such is the uncertain, such the discouraging Condition of Conquerors, and so much do they lose as well as risk by their Success. Had Edward been defeated at first, ’tis like he would have been a gainer at last. It cost him as much to lose them as to take them; and if they had continued to him and his Successors, they boded so little Good to England as even to threaten its Ruin, the loss of its Independency and Liberty. King Edward’s Heart was possessed with all other Greatness as well as with great Courage. He was full of Liberality and Munificence, kept a splendid Court, loved Turnaments, Building and Expensive Gayeties, | and had a numerous Family. From all these fol. 380v Causes, perhaps too from the ill Management of his Exchequer, there followed a great Waste of public Money, such as had been raised for the War and Payment of the national Debts. The Nation grew discontented, and the Parliament refused to supply him otherwise than upon very mortifying Terms, the removal of his favourite Ministers, of his beloved Mistress, and even of his own Son the Duke of Lancaster, who was called King of Castile.26

Treaty of Bruges (1375). England was represented by John of Gaunt, the first duke of Lancaster and the third surviving son of Edward III. When he married Infanta Constance of Castile in 1371, John took the title of King of Castile. 26 William Latimer, Steward of the Household from 1368 to 1370 and Chamberlain of the Household from 1371, and his son-in-law John Neville, appointed Steward of the Household in the same year, were impeached by the ‘Good Parliament’ in April 1376. The king’s mistress, Alice Perrers (c. 1340–1400/01), was also summoned and condemned to seclusion.

The Reign of Edward III

497

Such Misfortunes both to him and his People (for a King and his People seldom suffer apart) came from a Source more remote than what was now alledged or perceived. The present Wants might have been easily supplied and removed, had not the Kingdom been sorely drained by so many warlike Expeditions formerly, which as they were attended with most marvellous Events, had so soothed the Vanity of the People, that they considered not how grievous they were, but how charming they were. The drunken Fit was now over, and as they had been extravagant in their Freaks, they rued their empty Pockets r fol. 381 when they were grown sober. Besides it was | doubtless the Duty of the King and his Councellors to have in Times of Peace eased the People who had been so generous and so squeezed in the late Times of War. His Fondness for Alice Pierce, a Lady of the Bed Chamber to his late excellent Queen Philippa, is in itself excuseable, and only so far to be blamed as she was suffered to be meddling in Matters of State and Justice. It was this Abuse that drew upon him the Censure of his Subjects and Historians. It is certain that such meddling is always unpopular; it often proves provoking. When such Ladies meddle in the least, they are always made worse than they are, and will be said to meddle a great deal more than they do: This is Reason enough why they should not be allowed to meddle at all. Why should the Honour of a King, why should the Quiet of a Kingdom, be staked against the humour of a Mistress? She is unpardonably wicked and ungrateful if she thus hurts either. And what is it to a Nation how a Prince pleases himself, when his Pleasure hurts not the Nation? But it is of great Consequence to a Prince that his People reproach him v fol. 381 not for sacrificing | them to his Pleasures. He can never be at a Loss which he is preferably to oblige, his Subjects or a Favorite. The latter may think it hard if she be not obliged: But he may surely think it much harder to disoblige his Subjects for a Favorite. Bad Favorites fancy that whatever their Masters can do upon their Account, he ought to do, and flatter him that he may too upon his own. But a wise Prince will always know that any Advice to hurt his People, tends to hurt him by hurting them. He can be a King without any Favorites, but not without his People. Their Good, as it 12 ⎡late⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

498

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 8

is his great Interest and Duty, ought to be his great and chief Concern, and all Measures, all Amusements laid aside, if they clash with this. The same Consideration ought to sway all that are about him and are admitted to advise him. It is not clear that Mrs Pierce had deserved all the popular Imputations against her. Nor is it likely that Edward who, though in Years, was not superannuated, would have indulged her in any such Carreer of Power, as would have notably impaired | that princely fol. 382r Dignity, which he had always so gloriously supported. She was certainly high in Favour; and, for that Reason only or chiefly, wanted not Enemies to find Faults, at least to aggravate such, probably to make them. Her situation exposed her to Envy, which is seldom without Malice, and Malice rarely without Invention. She certainly had some Faults: It was a very great one to darken, as she did, the brightest Reign ’till then in the English Annals. It is not likely that he meant any Harm to his People by entertaining this Lady; nay it is likely they were much more disgusted than hurt by her. But as all public Disgusts are to be prevented where they can, he should have restrained her to the Character of a Mistress; a Conduct which could have produced little more than Whispers: But by suffering her to intrude into public Affairs, he incurred loud Complaints and severe Censure. Thus far she was an Enemy to his Fame, his most valuable Acquisition, an Acquisition so dearly bought and so long enjoined; and was therefore unworthy of his Protection much more of his Fondness. This shews what great Weaknesses | may Accompany great Tal- fol. 382v ents; that the ablest Men often indulge their weakest humours most; that Follies are not committed by Fools only, and that Wise-men are called so principally because they commit fewer than others. One advantage the foolish may boast over the Wise, that the Follies of the latter are generally most extravagant as well as most mischievous. Mighty Folly can hardly come from mean Parts. Upon this Occasion too may be seen the Caprice of the People as well as of the King. What hurt had Alice Pierce done to them in Comparison with the War against France? It had drained them of infinite Strength in Men and Money to conquer that Kingdom, and to keep their Conquests so much to their Disadvantage, that they saved themselves by losing them. Had not these Conquests been lost,

The Reign of Edward III

499

the English Nation must have been lost. Yet with what Zeal and Ardour, with what profusion of Purse and of Lives did they pursue these Conquests, which were their Glory and their Joy, as was the Conqueror their Delight and Daring? fol. 383r Mrs Pierce was charged with taking | Money for private Favour and making a Fortune; yet not a Country in England was perhaps fifty Pounds the worse for her. Yet against this Grievance, in which so few suffered, they storm and rail, and boldly censure their beloved King. Such is the nice situation of a King; such the strange variable Temper of the People even under the best King! His worst Measures may gain their applause, his best may provoke them, and his smallest Errors displease them. Yet, as it surely is his Interest, he will find it his Security and Ease to humour them even in their Caprices, such of them at least as are not hurtful to themselves. Without their GoodWill he will find it very difficult to do great Things, and is therefore very blameable (I think very weak too) if he forfeit it for private and little Considerations. The best Way to carry great Points, is sometimes to give up small. Edward the third indeed dismissed Mrs Pierce, at the Request of the Parliament, but recalled her again, and thence brought fresh blame upon himself. She engrossed him during his last Sickness, but fol. 383v in his last Agonies | plundered and abandoned him: She would do no more Duty when there was no more Spoil. She doth not however appear to have purloined the public Treasure, nor to be charged justly with any enormous Crimes. The Articles in Parliament against her are nothing heinous, though possibly swelled beyond their size by her Enemies, who, as she was now divested of Power and very obnoxious for having had so much, procured against her a Sentence of Confiscation and Banishment, from which the next Parliament readily relieved her. Even whilst she lay under it, she married a very considerable Subject; a Circumstance much in her Favour. Indeed to those who are inclined to construe her Conduct in the best Sense; her chief Crimes appear to have been friendly Offices done for others by her superior Credit with the King. This sort of Goodness is always Guilt in the Eyes of such as envy it in others, or want it to themselves. 6 yet B : when A (fol. 352v)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

500

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 8

Edward the third was born for Kingship; he had all great Qualities, no great Failings; a spirit high, an heart very gentle; a person majestic yet lovely. He never deceived his People, never differed with his Parliament; | therefore was never distrusted, never left unassisted fol. 384r by either. He was as much above all Falshood towards his People, as all Falshood is below every true Father of his People, and all little Guile unworthy of a great Man. He was free from all Vengeance but towards Crimes and Criminals, from all Fierceness except in Battle, and even then from all Fury; a mighty Hero, a meek Man; fearless amongst a thousand Deaths, compassionate in the midst of Blood; mild and tractable after Victory; a Stranger to Pride even in Triumphs and under Laurels, tender to his Subjects, humane to his Enemies. His Complaisance as flowing as natural, far from a Prejudice, was an Embellishment to his Dignity. His Bounty like his Station and his Mind, was altogether Royal; and he never forgot Recompences, though often Offences. As he was at once a brave Soldier and a consummate General, so he was a wise Counsellor as well as a great King. He was too much a Man to claim power divine, or even divine Titles; Claims which can only serve to cover scandalous purposes and insufficiency: He assumed no | Prerogative inconsistent with the fol. 384v Laws much less above them, and thought he had no more Right to alter or abolish Laws because he was their Protector, than to destroy his People because he was their Sovereign. So far was he from pleading a Right to oppress, because the Kings his Progenitors had been Oppressors. He never once complained that his own Father had been unjustly deposed for his violent and impotent Government. So far was he from thinking, much less contending, that the deposing of lawless Kings was unlawful; a Doctrine adopted only by weak and dishonest Princes, and scorned by such Princes as Edward the third, who want it not, and consider it only as confounding the Good with the Bad, and setting the best upon a Level with the worst. As he gloriously swerved from his Father’s Example, he feared not his Father’s inglorious Fate. His Reign therefore was happy, because his Administration was just.

11 weak ⎡mild⎤ 16 though] he | often] did 31 ⎡the1⎤

Chapter 9

The Reign of James the First fol. 385r The manly Reign of Queen Elizabeth was followed by the different

Reign of King James, who wanted not the appearance of Parts and Quickness. His great Want was a masculine Spirit, in which I comprehend Sincerity and a Capacity to deal with Men. The Dissimulation which he boasted, had its worst Effect upon himself. As it was obvious, it was impotent, and could neither deceive the Nation nor Particulars. It was considered with indignation and Contempt by all Men, as Treachery without Force. By thinking to over-reach all Men, he only taught and indeed justified all Men, to over-reach Him. His weakest Servants governed him: Foreign States baffled and insulted him: Most of them laughed at him: Nor was it a wonder; that such Heroes as Henry the fourth of France, and Gustavus Adolphus of fol. 385v Sweden | should divert themselves with the strange Importance, big Words, false Dignity and unkingly Learning of King James. His Conduct was so unlike that of Queen Elizabeth, his Spirit and Policy so below hers, that her Reign, however glorious in itself, still derives fresh Glory from a Comparison with His. He was a King in the Cradle; his Mother, a very fine Lady, but a very bad Queen, having lost her Crown by her licentious Behaviour

3 ⎡the appearance of⎤ 8 ⎡and Contempt⎤ 12 him],: ⎡most⎤

5

10

15

20

502

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 9

and Crimes.1 So that though he sat in his Mother’s Throne, such was his Pride and Weakness as to flatter himself and persuade others, that he was a King by Divine Right; as if the Gift and Consent of the States of the Realm had not been sufficient, when from Them he had his whole Right. In his Youth he was managed by the Arts and Emissaries of the House of Guise, who then ruled France. He so blindly listened to their Councels, that, though he was the last of his House, he continued unmarried, against better Advice and all good | Policy, fol. 386r till he was three and twenty, and probably would longer, had not the Designs of the Guises suffered a terrible Reverse. They intended for him, and He intended for himself, because They did, a Popish Queen; a Choice utterly disagreeable to his protestant Subjects, and therefore postponed till he could master or deceive them. Queen Elizabeth knew his partiality to Popery, and effectually disabled him from serving its Interest, by the alarming Impressions which she gave of him and his Foreign Engagements, to his protestant Subjects. Thus she gained the Kirk and the principal Nobility, and by planting artful and acceptable Instruments of her own about him, she discovered all his Secrets and Foibles, and improved them to her own Purposes. His Inclinations and Antipathies were so well known to all Men, whilst he thought himself secure in concealing both, that, though he highly flattered the Ministers of the Kirk, by extolling Presbytery, as the only Church Government, and by railing at the Liturgy of the Church of England, as an ill said Mass in English,2 they still | distrus- fol. 386v ted Him as much as He hated Them. Of which hatred he gave continual Proofs when he came to be King of England; and thus acted contrary to all good Policy; since as he ought to have courted them

4 ⎡had2⎤ 10 ⎡for⎤ 11 ⎡for⎤ 16 ⎡Foreign⎤ 1

James became King of Scots when he was just thirteen months old, succeeding his mother Mary, queen of Scots (and queen consort of France), who had been forced to abdicate in his favour in 1567, and later to flee to England. Suspicious of anyone who might provoke a Catholic uprising in her realm, Queen Elizabeth imprisoned Mary, and finally, nineteen years later, had her executed on a charge of treason. Elizabeth died in 1603, and ironically, Mary’s son ( James VI of Scotland) succeeded her as King James I of England. 2 See Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland, ed. by Thomson, for the year 1590: August: Sessio viii.

The Reign of James I

503

upon all Accounts, considering their keen Spirit and great Influence over the Multitude, and even over many of the first Quality; so especially to facilitate the Union, which he was meditating between the two Nations. His Attempts to set up Episcopacy in Scotland were equally weak, and as weakly conducted, both on his part, and on the part of the New Bishops, generally Pedants, half Papists, oppressive, immoral, and obnoxious to public Odium. His Fondness for Episcopacy arose from no religious Principle, but from a very silly political Maxim by him deemed wise, which will appear hereafter. His Prejudice for Popery was sincere and selfish. The greatest Powers abroad were of that Religion: So were many great Men in fol. 387r Scotland; and there were many in the House of Lords in | England, all Friends as he thought to absolute Monarchy, and who for the pleasure of having their Religion restored, would consent to set him above Parliaments, who neither liked Popery, nor absolute Monarchy. For he was as much intoxicated with the Chimera of boundless Power, as he was unfit to manage that or any Power. Under such Infatuation and strange Partiality to Popery, it was natural for him chiefly to court Papists. His Favorites and Ministers were many of them, at best, concealed ones, and known to be so. He even assured the Pope, by a Letter under his hand, what high regard he had for Catholics, and how tenderly he would use them: An Assurance which he took care to have conveyed to all Degrees of Papists. The Letter from the English Council, notifying the Queen’s Death, addressed to a Prince extreamly vain of Kingship, rendered him still more vain. It began with awful Epithets of a new Strain; Right High, Right Excellent, and Mighty Prince, our Dread Sovereign; v fol. 387 a Strain that could hardly be improved; yet | it afterwards was, by that of Sacred Majesty, a Complement Seldom or never paid to Queen Elizabeth, nor to any of our Edwards or Henries, but now taken from the Divinity to be bestowed upon King James. Though he was next Heir to the Crown, yet as it depended in great Measure upon Queen Elizabeth, (a wise Princess who did not love him, could not esteem him, and withal knew that he loved not Her) whether he should enjoy it, he still feared the worst, and was so overcome with this Apprehension, that upon her Death, he could hardly believe the 4 Episcop⎡ac⎤y 6 oppressive,] and 29 ⎡Seldom or⎤ 33 him,] and

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

504

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

News of his being proclaimed in England. In truth his Succession was so problematical even in England, that the Earl of Northumberland threatened, in Case of Opposition, to bring him in by Force. But there was found no Dispute or Difficulty. Queen Elizabeth, far from having laid any Scheme to set him aside, had named him for her Successor upon her Deathbed. His Journey to London was slow and pompous: He was every where | received and accompanied with Crowds and popular Cries, fol. 388r every where magnificently feasted by People of Condition, and by all the great Towns. But, though Feasting and Popularity greatly delighted him; yet as he was as subject to be frightened as pleased, he began to apprehend that secret Enemies and Assassins might safely sculk in the Throng: He therefore had recourse to a Measure, which became a very common one throughout his Reign. He issued a Proclamation forbidding the People to incommode his Progress by their Numbers.3 It might well seem odd, that the Fondness and Acclamations of Subjects for a new Sovereign, should be so offensive to him, as to be thus publickly checked by him. But the King had Reasons too ridiculous to be owned. Upon his Journey, when he inquired what might be the Estate of a certain great Subject, mentioned to have a very large one, and was answered, that it was ten thousand Pounds a year; his first Reflection upon it was, ‘that the Owner would make a fine Traitor’; as if he wanted him to be one. | At Newark he did a thing still more offens- fol. 388v ive, indeed shocking to Men of Sense, though it might please the Multitude. He caused a Fellow to be hanged without Trial, by his bare Warrant, for picking a Pocket: A Proceeding truly arbitrary, such as inferred that either there was no Law, or that He could dispense with all Law. As he treated the Pickpocket, he might have treated his First Subjects, and all his Subjects, upon any imputed Crime: For where there was to be no Trial, any Imputation was sufficient, if it satisfied Him. This was an early Specimen of that uncon-

2 – 3 Northum⎡b⎤erland 4 ⎡found⎤ 13 Throng],: 19 not proper ⎡too ridiculous⎤ 21 ⎡certain⎤ 3

Stuart Royal Proclamations, ed. by Larkin and Hughs, vol. 1: Royal Proclamations of King James I, 1603–1625, p. 8.

The Reign of James I

505

troulled Sovereignty, for which he always manifested such passionate Inclinations and unequal Talents. The Sheriff of Lincolnshire, who was rash enough to execute this lawless Warrant, as he became answerable to the Law for the Life of a Subject unjustly taken away against Law, exposed himself to have been justly punished for his criminal Obedience. But it was here as in r fol. 389 all such Cases and in all Countries: They who | punish poor Offenders, without or beyond Law, are themselves rarely punished, though they be more dangerous Offenders, as the Example is more threatening to the Community than when Men of Character are oppressed; since these will be better defended and more espoused. If he saw nothing in his Journey but Complaisance and good humour, with Flights of Flattery and general Joy, he found at his arrival more substantial Court, as it was more deliberate, from his Ministers and Privy Council. Cecil, the Secretary, was one of the forwardest, he who by his Enmity to the late Earl of Essex, was thought to have incurred that of King James, who had greatly confided in the Earl, and received Assurances of Zeal, and Services from him.4 Whatever Disgusts Cecil might formerly have given him, he had long since wiped them all out, having held a constant Correspondence with the King and devoted himself to his Interest a great while before the Death of his Mistress the Queen. As a Proof of this, as well as of the ready Wit of Cecil, Wilson tells a remarkable fol. 389v Story, | that a Packet from Scotland was delivered to Cecil whilst in the same Coach with the Queen, then taking the air upon BlackHeath. He at first seemed eager to open it, but pretending to perceive an offensive Scent from it, said, that it should be first aired. The Queen, who hated all ill Smells, consented: And then he had Leisure to take care that the Packet produced nothing to offend the Queen.5 The King now began to aggrandize his Countrymen, together with his Mother’s Adherents in England, all Papists, though one or

5

10

15

20

25

30

7 ⎡such⎤ | ⎡in all⎤ 9 ⎡they be⎤ 19 then ⎡formerly⎤ 4

Robert Cecil, the first Earl of Salisbury (1563–1612), served both Queen Elizabeth and King James as Secretary of State. In 1601 he got into a dispute with Robert Devereux, the second earl of Essex, who as a result was tried for treason before his peers. For much of his working life Cecil was King James’s spymaster. 5 Wilson, The History of Great Britain, Being the Life and Reign of King James the First, p. 2.

506

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

two of them had upon this Occasion taken the Name of Protestants. The Norfolk Family were particularly distinguished and highly promoted. This was the first remarkable Contempt with which he treated the Policy and Memory of the late Queen, who kept Popery low, and had humbled its Heads in England, particularly that otherwise powerful and popish Family. What was equally unpardonable in him, he had the signal want of Decency and Gratitude, | neither to fol. 390r wear mourning for her himself, nor to suffer others to wear it. He carried this Folly and Aversion so far, so to signify to Foreign Ministers, that they should be ill received if they wore any. If he afterwards spoke well of her, and compared her to Augustus in the Felicity of her Government, he did it in Parliament, where he knew she had many Admirers, and perhaps to shew his Reading. In some of his many Proclamations, where, as they were addressed to the Nation, he durst not abuse her; yet he alledged that whereas, she, who was but a Woman, had suffered certain ill Practices to grow up; he, who was more expert in Government, and had come early to the Trade, (as he was wont to call it) was resolved to root them out. These Proclamations, many of them penned by himself, are rank with Pedantry, and full of Vanity and an arbitrary spirit. His Ingratitude to that glorious Princess, was the more unpardonable, since she had not only left him her Kingdom, but a Kingdom in full Peace and Prosperity, after a long Course of War and Dangers, all happily overcome by her great Spirit and | Wisdom. As he was fol. 390v utterly unfit to grapple with such Terrors and Difficulties, he might thank Her for preventing his Fears. I hardly question, whether any great civil Feud and Uproar in the Nation, would not have effectually scared him from entring it, even for a Crown, as fond as he was of one. Even the Peace and Security of his weak Reign, were derived from the Strength and Renown entailed upon the Public by her wise one. He was a great Dealer in Proclamations, and issued about a dozen in half so many Weeks, even before he had arrived at London; all with a Design which he thought deep, of having them considered

5 ⎡particularly⎤ 15 whereas,] as | ⎡who⎤ 15 – 16 Woman,] she 20 | and an arbitrary spirit | 22 as ⎡since⎤

The Reign of James I

507

and respected as Laws, and then he should be reverenced and obeyed as the sole Lawmaker. Upon his Coronation he caused a Coin to be struck, and distributed, with a surprising Inscription: Under his own Image in the Medal was this Motto, Cæsar Cæsarum, the Cæsar of Cæsars: A Motto so vain and unnatural, and the Cause of such Mirth, that he fol. 391r had them called in | and melted down. None of the Historians mention this; probably because the Coin was quickly suppressed, as well it might, upon the first noise, which was like to be very early. But I have it from good Authority, the celebrated Joseph Scaliger, who declares that he then had one of these Coins, when he relates the Story. I have put his Words in the Margin.(a) Queen Elizabeth was slow and parcimonious in conferring Honours, and thence kept up their Value and Dignity, and made them highly distinguishing, and thence highly acceptable, when they were conferred: This was true Policy, like the Rest of Hers. She had not made so many Knights in above forty Years, as James made in forty Days. He knighted above two hundred upon the Road, before he reached London; for no public Merit, the genuine Ground of all public Honour, but from Humour, or Flattery, or because he was humbly asked. And what so able and useful a Minister as Sr Francis Walsingham had obtained with great Difficulty, after signal Services and important Negociations,6 was now the Portion of every Sycofol. 391v phant or aspiring Rustic, who could sooth a Minister, | or bribe a Page. Higher Titles were as wantonly and indiscriminately lavished; as if he had meant to create a new Nobility and another House of Lords; or, to sweeten the old with higher Ranks. The Favourers and Adherents of the late Earl of Essex were not forgot upon this Occa-

5

10

15

20

25

(a)

Jacques Roy d’Angleterre, lors qu’il fut couronné, fit une Largesse au Peuple, comme on fait à la Couronation des Roys, et fit battre une nouvelle Monnoye; ou il avait fait mettre Cæsar Cæsarum; chose absurde et inouyë: il tasche de les faire toutes refondre; J’en ay une Piece. Scaligeriana, tom. 2. In 8°. p. 385. A Amsterdam, 1740.

3 – 4 distributed,] on that occasion, 14 Price ⎡Value⎤ 17 he ⎡James⎤ 21 ⎡humbly⎤ 6

Sir Francis Walsingham (1532–90), Principal Secretary to Elizabeth I from 1573 until 1590. He foiled various plots against the queen, and brought about the execution of Mary, queen of Scots.

508

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

sion, but rather distinguished above others; a Proof and not a politic one, how much he approved the unnatural Conspiracy of that rash ungrateful Earl, to dethrone his royal and indulgent Mistress. These were unpromising Beginnings of a Reign, which yet never mended, but indeed grew worse. One dangerous Symptom attended it, very obvious and unpopular, the Swarm of Scots about the King; a Symptom threatening to the King himself, who was so far from discerning it, that he encouraged it, though he was afterwards terribly scared with the Effects of it, as will be seen. He was always struck with young and handsome Faces, and his Court was a Seraglio of Favorites, who found their Account in adhering to Him; nor had He ever the Courage to get rid of Them, even | when They insulted Him, fol. 392r and He grew tired of Them, unless the Rest combined to crush one that was obnoxious to all, and to set up an other to supplant him. Thus, when he grew tired of Carr, the whole Court supported him to destroy Carr; and encouraged him to advance Villiers, who proved a greater Tyrant to his Master and to all subaltern Favorites than ever Carr had been or could be.7 Such a Train of his Countrymen following him into England, could not be pleasing to Englishmen, at the Expence of whom they were to thrive and fatten, as they sincerely meant to do, and effectually did, snatching what the Natives thought their Birthright, basking in English Promotions and Wealth, and thence bringing the King under the offensive Imputation of Partiality to his Country Men, and under the Upbraidings of his new Subjects: A threatening Evil, easy to have been foreseen and prevented by a Prince of a discerning and vigorous Spirit, above Fear and Flattery and scorning to be the Property of his Creatures. The New-Comers had from King James all that they asked, and sometimes more than He had to give, though he thought the | Wealth of the Nation all his own, and at his intire dis- fol. 392v posal, as he was often mad enough to declare: Nor, if it had been so, would it have been sufficient to satiate all his craving and needy Fol-

7 George Villiers, the first duke of Buckingham (1592–1628), met the king in 1614, and replaced Robert Carr, earl of Somerset (c. 1587–1645), in the king’s favours. Carr’s fall from grace was also due to his part in the poisoning of the courtier and poet Sir Thomas Overbury, a prisoner in the Tower of London.

The Reign of James I

509

lowers, who considered not the Nation nor Him, but only Themselves, their Pride and Wants. This was so much the Case in a late Reign, that I question whether the then Prince, considering the dreadful Force of Faction against him, could have continued in the Throne, had not his Countrymen been disabled by Law from enjoying Honours and Employments; though He was a Prince of Spirit and Probity, but indolent and partial to his Countrymen and old Servants. Some of them (even of the lowest) utterly disregarding his Security and Fame, made lordly Fortunes, in spight of the disabling Act.8 King James, who might have seen, that by his holding both Kingdoms, an End was, or might be put to the usual Fewds between the two Nations, had the Weakness to revive and increase these Fewds, by promoting such Numbers of his Countrymen, and thence irritatfol. 393r ing | greater Numbers of the English. Some of the former he might no doubt have raised and ought, especially by Degrees: His great Fault was in doing it too much, too soon, and to so many. I mean no national Reflection by what I have said of the Scots, his Followers: God knows I am far from any such meaning. Few of any great Figure, hardly any of great Fortune, came along with him, but chiefly the needy and ambitious, the Hunters of Fortune, with Men of Intrigue and Ambition, many of them Sycophants and Minions, very mean in their Originals; One of them no higher than a Page, afterwards prime Favorite, and an English Earl, of boundless Wealth and Power; another prospered highly, though of so base Education, that he could neither write nor read; a third the Son of a Shopkeeper, became a Courtier of supreme note, raised to great Places, and an English Earldom, fed with continual and profuse Bounties, and continually wasting them in Epicurism and Prodigality.9 The Courtiers soon found his weak side (if he had any other) and v fol. 393 without Bounds soothed his boundless Vanity. His | Wisdom and

5

10

15

20

25

30

4 – 5 ⎡considering the dreadful Force of Faction against him,⎤ 7 of] great 17 many.] Neither do 18 any ⎡no⎤ 19 have no ⎡am far from any⎤ 28 ⎡and1⎤ 8

The Papists’ Disabling Act of 1678 (repealed in 1829) barred Catholics from Parliament. Villiers was the third son of Sir George Villiers, Knight, by Mary Beaumont, a second wife. Court gossips later made out, when Villiers was the powerful Duke of Buckingham, that he was of humble birth, and that his mother was a serving-woman. 9

510

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

Learning were two great Objects of their Incense. They concluded that they might safely extoll him upon Points where he was daily extolling himself. Even his public Speeches, as they were Sermons to his Hearers, were Panegyrics upon his own Person and Wisdom, crowded with quaint Maxims, trite Latin Sentences, and Distinctions. For his Wisdom, let the Actions of his Life and Reign be answerable. His Learning was really worse than none, especially for a King. Pere d’Orleans, a warm Advocate for the Family of the Stuarts,10 owns that, whatever Learning he affected and was flattered for, ‘by his Works he shews rather an affection for it, than any Taste of it’. His Books (for he wrote many, such perhaps as no Man ever wrote) were, like his Speeches, chequered with Quotations, Flights and Conceits.11 He explains to his Readers the unexplicable Revelations of St John, in a Stile as positive as if St John, in Person, had | explained fol. 394r them to him. In his Dæmonology, he is as clear and communicative about Witches and infernal Spirits, as if he had lived amongst them, and learnt their Trade and Secrets, with the whole Black-art, and been witness to all their chimerical Feats and Compacts. He declares what Discourse Satan holds with Witches, how he outwits them; to what Adventures he prompts them; what leud Intrigues he has with them, and by what bodily Means, he, being a Spirit, performs such fleshly Gallantries. This Book, crazy as it was, produced an Act of Parliament, made to flatter the Author, and to authorize the Murder of ancient Wretches, who had got an ill Name, (of Witches or Wizzards,) given them by Ignorance, or Malice, by the Superstition of the Rabble and of such as led the Rabble. Many poor Innocents have thus perished, been imprisoned, tortured, hanged, drowned and burned, by the Authority of a Law; the most dangerous Sort of Murder! To the Misfor-

5 ⎡trite⎤ | ⎡Sentences,⎤ 8 King],. and 18 ⎡and1⎤ 26 Name, ( ] that 27 – 28 ⎡and of such as led the Rabble⎤ 10

Pierre Joseph d’Orléans, S.I. (1644–98), the author of a History of the Revolutions in England under the Family of the Stuarts, from the year 1603, to 1690 (Engl. transl. 1711). 11 The works of James I mocked in the following lines include: his commentary on the Book of Revelation (1588); Daemonologie (1597); Basilikon Doron (1598); The Trew Law of Free Monarchies (1598); and A Counterblaste to Tobacco (1604).

The Reign of James I

511

tune of the Public, to the Disgrace of Reason, and to the Destruction of Numbers, this Act, the cruel Occasion of infinite Slaughter, has fol. 394v been but lately repealed; though it must | be owned, to the Honour of this enlightened Age and the Wisdom of the Judges, that it had lain obsolete for half a Century.12 His Majesty not only tells the World the Distinction between Wizzards and Necromancers, that ‘the latter command the Devil, and the former are commanded by him’, with all the other unaccountable Characters, Transactions and Relations of the Devils and their Instruments, but proposes proper punishments for the different Sorts of these visionary Criminals, and even Methods to find them out. One is by Water: If an old Woman proved heavier than the Water, she sunk, and, being innocent, could only be drowned: If she swam (a usual Case) she was guilty, and burned. But it was plain to the Sagacity of that theological Monarch, that as witches (without proving that ever there were one) had, by their contract with the Devil, renounced their Baptismly Water, So the Water renounced Them. His ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΟΝ ΔΩΡΟΝ; or Advice to his Son Henry, is, like his other Works, full of Quaintness and Quotations without Substance and Solidity. He instructs the Prince, ‘how to dress himself; r fol. 395 not prodigally, like | a debauched Spendthrift; nor meanly, like a Miser; nor delicately, like a Harlot; nor slovenly, like a country Clown; nor gayly, like a vain Courtier; nor gravely, like a Parson, etc. He recommends Hunting to his Son, as it is a warlike Exercise, which he prefers to Coursing, as not so warlike’. A Word that from King James seemed out of Character. He cautions the Prince against Tumbling, as only fit for Comedians. His Advices to his Son in other Points of equal Importance, are alike unkingly, all illustrated with many odd Similes. He directs him how to wear his Clothes, and how

5

10

15

20

25

30

4 ⎡enlightened⎤ | the1] enlightened 13 If ] (a usual Case) 14 – 18 ⎤ But ... Them.⎤ 15 ⎡as⎤ 19 ⎡Henry⎤ 12 The Witchcraft Act of 1735 (9 Geo. 2 c. 5), repealing both the 1563 Scottish Act and the 1604 English Act, represented a complete reversal in attitudes. People were no longer to be hanged for consorting with evil spirits. Instead, a person who pretended to possess the power to call up spirits or to predict the future or cast spells or discover the location of stolen goods was to be treated as a vagrant and a con artist and subjected to fines and imprisonment.

512

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

to chew his Victuals, when to look pleasantly, when stately, and when with a martial Air, and ‘to let his Countenance, when at war, smell of Courage’; and he quotes infinite Authorities to prove obvious Things and Trifles. His moral Advices to Prince Henry, who wanted them much less than his Adviser, have little Strength and less meaning, as he never practised them himself. He warns him against vicious Company, filthy Conversation and Swearing; Habits for which the Father was famous, and his Son so far from practising them, | that by his Sobriety and fol. 395v regular Manners, he disgraced the Court and Conversation of the King. In his True Law of Free Monarchy, he would seem to rail at Tyrants, but is an Advocate for Tyranny. He contends that, let them be ever so bad, they are never to be opposed, much less removed: He owns, ‘they deserve Punishment; but they must only receive it from the Hand of God’. So that no Remedy is allowed to their poor Subjects used like Beasts by Madmen, who act as if there was no God. Buchanan his excellent Preceptor, would have taught him better, if he could have been better taught. That Great Man, as sound in his Politicks, as inimitable in his Poetry, had given him a fine Theory of Government, with all the proper Boundaries of Power in a Sovereign, and Rights in the People, in his immortal Dialogue de Jure Regni, dedicated to the King his Pupil; who proffited as little by it, as he did by the other Lessons of so incomparable a Tutor.13 For, Latin and Greek and Logic were no Accomplishments | in a King, who misap- fol. 396r plied them to Craft and Pedantry. The King had a sort of Parts, which did him no good; and his Learning did him harm: He made a low and dishonest Use of both. A Foreign Monarch, very unlike Him, hearing how much he was extolled for his Wisdom, said pleasantly but bitterly: ‘He is a great King and writes little Books’. The Observation of the same brave and witty Monarch, upon King James

9 ⎡them⎤ 26 ⎡a sort of⎤ 13

George Buchanan (1506–82), the most distinguished Scottish humanist of the sixteenth century, had been appointed tutor to the young king James VI in 1570. His principal works included De iure regni apud Scotos (1579), a treatise on the limits of monarchical power, and Rerum Scoticarum Historia (1582).

The Reign of James I

513

his being complemented as the Solomon of the Age, was still more Bitter.14 His Majesty’s Counter Blast to Tobacco, a Commodity then so promising to the Revenue, which it has since so prodigiously raised, is a strange Performance, though not stranger than the Rest. In answer to such as might think it too low a Subject for a King, he says in his Preface, ‘that an Ant is an Animal as well as an Elephant; so a Wren is a Bird (he puts it in Latin and calls it Avis) as well as a Swan. And so (for he has another Simile) a small Dint of the Tooth-Ach is a Disease, as well as the fearful Plague’. He confesses indeed, that fol. 396v ‘Quilibet e populo, may serve for a Physician upon this Occasion’, | yet undertakes the Cure himself. The same Strain of false Learning, affected Eloquence and conceited Illustrations, runs through his other Writings. He engages in Controversy with squabling Divines, and attacks that Squabbling Monk, Cardinal Bellarmine, not properly against Popery, but against the deposing Doctrine of the Pope: Against the other Parts of Popery, he has little or no Objection, and professes his readiness to come into reconciling Schemes, and to even meet the Papists half way; ‘for that the Church of Rome was an old Church and our Mother Church’. He makes a long Answer to a Speech of Cardinal Perron’s in Favour of the Pope’s Power over Kings, in Cases of Apostacy and Heresy: Here again the King only assaults the Pope, without arraigning the Popish Superstition, and the impious Tenets of that Church. So he writes against Papists, and is a Friend to Popery. He writes too against Vorstius and the Arminians in Holland and applies to the fol. 397r States in Form by | his Embassador to have them suppressed and severely punished, calling the whole Sect Monsters, horrible Blasphemers, and damnable Hereticks. Thus he is an Advocate for the Calvinists and Puritans, and holds their Creed of Predestination, etc. Yet he hates the Puritans (who were Calvinists) and is always railing

5

10

15

20

25

30

15 – 16 ⎡that Squabbling Monk,⎤ 24 ⎡and⎤ 14

Henry IV of France, pouring scorn on James’ pretension to be the ‘Scottish Solomon’, remarked that ‘he hoped he was not David the fiddler’s son’, alluding to the possibility that David Riccio (the music-loving secretary of Queen Mary of Scots) and not her husband Darnley, was King James’ father — a reference to the fact that the biblical Solomon was the son of King David, a harpist and composer.

514

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 9

at them in his Conversation and Writings; descending from the Dignity and Prudence of a King, to turn Party-man, and teaching a powerful Body of his Subjects, how much he hated them, and consequently how much they ought to love Him.15 I thought it necessary to say thus much of King James’s Learning and Writings, so pedantic and uninstructing, yet so much extolled by Flatterers, and recommended to the World by a long Preface, crowded with Quotations, by Bishop Andrews:16 But they were never esteemed. They have been long quite sunk, and are now a pompous Edition of waste Paper. He seems in Authorship, as well as in several other particulars, to have resembled the Emperor Claudius, a poor spirited Prince, awkard in His Person, governed by Fear and Favorites, | but conceited, much addicted to writing Books, and making fol. 397v Speeches. Suetonius says, ‘that he wrote many Volumes, rather without Sense, than without Stile’. Multa Volumina scripsit magis inepte quam ineleganter.17 It must be observed too that, as Claudius had for his Tutor that great Genius Livy, the famous Historian, King James had for his Instructor that celebrated Wit and Historian Buchanan. Any Soil will produce Flattery, and any Pretence warrant Flatterers. The Wisdom and Learning of King James were the great Themes of the Courtiers and the Strains in Fashion at Court. This had its natural Effect to heighten his unmanly Pride, from whence he furnished Sycophants (and most about him were so) with another Snare to mislead him by adoring him, humbly and strongly confirming a

8 Andrews],: bBut 14 Volumnes 15

Three major works by James are linked to the controversy with Cardinals Bellarmine and Du Perron, revolving around the pretensions of the papacy in dealing with heretical princes: Triplici nodo, triplex cuneus. Or An Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance (1608), the Premonition or Monitory Preface (1609), and A Remonstrance for the Right of Kings (1615). James’ Declaration against Conradus Vorstius was published in the Spring of 1612 as part of his endeavours to prevent the appointment of Vorstius to the Professorship of Theology at Leyden University. See Willson, ‘James I and his Literary Assistants’; Stewart, The Cradle King: A Life of James VI & I, pp. 226–32. 16 During the reign of James I, Lancelot Andrewes (1555–1626) served, in succession, as the Bishop of Chichester, Ely, and Winchester, and supervised the translation of the Authorized Version (or King James Version) of the Bible. 17 De vita Caesarum, Liber V (Divus Claudius), 41.

The Reign of James I

515

prevailing Conceit of his, ‘that the Crown was his by an absolute personal and Divine Right, independent of Law and Parliaments, much fol. 398r more of the late | Queen’s Choice and Nomination’. This was the first Rise of the Notion of Divine indefeasible Hereditary Right in England, and of the unlimited Power of Hereditary Kings; Notions full of Nonsense and Impiety, threatening to the Constitution, and pernicious to Princes. This vain Prince, deluding himself with this Conceit, and from it inferring absurd and selfish Conclusions, dreamed, ‘that his Will was to be a Law to his Subjects, and their Property his Right’. His Ministers seemed to hold, at least they maintained the same courtly false Doctrine, and thence governed him as absolutely as he meant to govern his People. This is the usual Effect of this sort of Power, and the Fate of such as claim it! The great Oppressor only enables his Minions to oppress. His Talents are often as small as his Ambition is great, and his Favorites perform what He cannot, using his Name, and flattering Him for doing all, whilst They find their Account in his doing Nothing, and therefore take care he shall do any Thing but v fol. 398 his Duty. It was enough for King James that he | thought himself supreme Ruler: His Ministers flattered him that he was so, and wantonly executed his Office for him. If he had a Divine Right to the Money of his Subjects, surely his Ministers and Minions had no Divine Right to it. Yet it was upon Them he squandered it. Was it not easie for him to infer, that public Money is raised only for public Uses, and that the enriching of his Favorites was of no use to the Nation but to impoverish it. Cecil was the Man of Business, therefore first Minister, lately created Earl of Salisbury. The Earls of Suffolk and Northampton were before him in Favour, but far short of him in Ability. These and all the Rest fed the King’s Frenzy for lawless Power. The two last (Howards), suspected Papists, were believed to be in their Hearts zealous for despotic Power in the King, who, having no Parliament

4 ⎡Divine⎤ 11 maintain⎡ed⎤ 18 ⎡therefore⎤ 30 – 31 Howards ⎡last (Howards)⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

516

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 9

to check him, would willingly introduce Popery, as the Papists would then be sincere Champions for him.18 There soon arrived Embassies | of Congratulation from abroad, fol. 399r particularly from France and Spain.19 The Marquis de Rosney, afterwards Duke de Sully, a great Minister and prime Favorite to Henry the 4th, came from that King.20 Two Things happened whilst he was here, both very remarkable. He was assured, ‘that he would offend the King if he appeared at his Audience in Mourning, the King wearing none himself, as before I have observed. The other is still more worthy of observation. The King declared publickly at his Table, that he had governed England for many Years before he came to the English Throne, and not a single Measure was taken by Queen Elizabeth or her Council, but by Directions from Him’. A pleasant Declaration, from one who had been so many Years the Pensioner and Creature of that great Princess, and made in the hearing of many who knew it, as all Men did. Yet as he could believe any Thing to his own advantage, it was very possible for Cecil to have led him into this extravagant Fancy, or humoured him in it. De Rosny succeeded in the Purpose of his Embassy and procured | a Renewal of the defensive fol. 399v Alliance contracted with Queen Elizabeth. Count D’Aremberg from Spain, offered nothing but fine Compliments, yet soon after there came a spanish Minister to propose a Negociation, which in Time produced a Treaty of Peace.21 James, in full Tranquillity, daily feasting and hunting, caressed on every side, and witness of the national Joy and Loyalty, was disturbed by the Plague, and retired to Wilton the Seat of the Earl of Pembroke. There he was alarmed with a Conspiracy to dethrone him and to place Arabella Stuart, his Cousin German on the Throne; a Conspir-

4 Ro| s |ny ⎡Rosney⎤ 18 Ro| s |ny 18

The introduction to court of Henry Howard, soon to be Earl of Northampton, and of Thomas Howard, soon to be Earl of Suffolk, marked the beginning of the Howard family’s rise to power in England, which reached a peak in their dominance of James’ government after the death of Cecil in 1612. 19 See De Lisle, After Elizabeth. The Rise of James of Scotland, pp. 199–206. 20 Maximilien de Béthune, called Marquis De Rosny (1560–1641), director of the king’s Council of Finance from 1596. In 1606 he became Duke de Sully and a peer of France. 21 The Treaty of London, signed in 1604, concluded the nineteen-year Anglo-Spanish War.

The Reign of James I

517

acy said to be contrived by Ld Gray, Ld Brooke, Ld Cobham, Sr Walter Raleigh, with several other Gentlemen of Figure, and two Priests.22 It was generally thought that the Court had Occasion for such a Conspiracy, for the Benefit of Confiscations as well as of Revenge, and that the Priests were thrown in to make it more probable. It was fol. 400r never proved, yet many suffered for it, apparently | against Law. The pretended Conspirators had given Provocation to be so treated for an Offence never to be forgiven, though never to be alledged. They had formed a Scheme for not admitting King James to the Succession, but upon restraining Articles, that he might own the Crown to be the Gift of the Nation, conferred by Parliament, and considering it as a Gift not a Property, or his Estate by Descent, should wear it without Wantonness. One particular Clause was said to have been added, which was judged next to Treason, if not Treason itself, ‘for limiting the Number of Scots attending the King into England’; a Clause which must needs create a Shoal of Enemies, the King himself one of the first, though perhaps not the most powerful. It is further said, that this Scheme would have been executed but for the Arts of the Treasurer Ld Buckhurst, and probably of Cecil the Secretary, and for the high Threats of the powerful Earl of Northumberland ‘that he would bring him in by Force, and without such Limitations’. What Returns of Gratitude were made to the Earl for fol. 400v such | courtly Zeal, will be soon seen.23 Was it a wonder, that the bold Contrivers of such a Scheme were judged worthy to be Traitors? Yet the Treason imputed to them was poorly contrived; nor had any Foundation, ‘but that some of the accused had been with D’Aremberg the Spanish Embassador’, who knowing Sr Walter to be a Man of great Abilities, a true English-Man, and an Enemy to Spain, made a perfidious Discovery to the King of the imaginary Plot. Spain was sunk and wanted Peace from Neces-

5

10

15

20

25

30

7 treated] for 27 accused] had accused 30 – 518,1 ⎡from Necessity⎤ 22 The ‘Main Plot’ ( July 1603). The plot was allegedly led by Henry Brooke, Lord Cobham, and financed by Spain. For some time before 1592, Arabella (or Arbella) Stuart was considered one of the natural candidates for succession to the English crown, after her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I. 23 See below, fol. 430r.

518

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 9

sity; so did King James from his natural Dread of War at the Expence of the Nation, which had been and would be a daily Gainer by the War; as Sr Walter had demonstrated to his Majesty; for which his Majesty liked not Sr Walter the better, but dreaded him the more, as a dangerous Man of a warlike Spirit; a glorious Character in the late Reign, but utterly discountenanced, and almost criminal in the present. Besides it was suggested that the great Parts and Wisdom of Sr Walter gave umbrage even to the Throne: It is certain they | did to fol. 401r Cecil, who well knew his prodigious Abilities, and thought himself not safe, whilst Sr Walter was so.24 At his Trial there was not one Witness produced against him: Only the false Deposition of one Man was urged; a Deposition proved to have been extorted from him by artifice and Lies, and afterwards recanted by him with solemn Remorse, and vehement Protestations, as utterly false, and the Effect of sudden Passion raised in him by lying Assurances, as if ‘Sr Walter had already accused Him’. Had they confronted him with Sr Walter, as Sr Walter prayed and insisted, and the Law required, that he might be, he would have zealously acquitted him, as he did by a Letter under his Hand, which Sr Walter presented, without effect, to the Jury; a strange Jury, who found him guilty, without any Guilt proved, or even probable, and in Spite of all the Arguments of Innocence. It was in a great Measure a packed Jury; many of those first impannelled, men of Figure and Quality, such as Sr Michael Stanhope, Sr | Edward Darcy and Sr William Killegrew, fol. 401v having been struck out the Night before the Tryal. Many even of the packed Jury, owned themselves sorely wounded in their Consciences for such a murdering Verdict, and asked his Pardon upon their Knees. Even Coke the Attorney General, who treated him so unfairly and even brutally at his Trial, was amazed to hear him found Guilty

1 ⎡from his natural Dread of War⎤ 11 him],: though the law explicitly requires two to the same Test. 20 ⎡without effect,⎤ | who] yet 24

On 17 November 1603, Sir Walter Raleigh (c. 1554–1618) was tried for treason in the Great Hall of Winchester Castle, which had been converted to house the Court of King’s Bench. Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634) prosecuted and Raleigh defended himself. His request to call Lord Cobham as his chief defence witness was rejected. Although he was found guilty, King James spared Raleigh’s life and he remained in the Tower until 1616. While in prison, he wrote several treatises and the first volume of The Historie of the World.

The Reign of James I

519

of Treason, when He, the Attorney had charged him only for Misprision of Treason. His own defence was noble, strong, dispassionate and unanswerable. His Sentence was suspended, he himself kept Prisoner in the Tower, where that masterly Performance, his History of the World, was produced. When he was secure in a Prison, the Courtiers had nothing to fear from him, but were great Gainers by him, having stripped (I had almost said robbed) him of a great Estate, gained by Merit, and the public Services of many Years. They had before removed him from his public Employments. fol. 402r | To gain credit to this mystical Treason, and pompous Prosecution, some of the accused lost their Lives; I mean such who had nothing else to lose. Others of better Quality fared worse: They were divested of their Estates, pardoned and starved. Lord Cobham had near ten thousand Pounds a Year taken from him, and not a Loaf of Bread left him. He lived on the Food of Vermin, and died, or rather perished, in a Garret, whither he ascended by a Ladder. He would have perished sooner, but for Alms from a poor Washer Woman, once his Servant. Tiberius, justly reckoned a cruel Prince, would have taught the merciful King James to have exercised less cruelty, and, ‘where he had granted Life, to have likewise granted the Means of Life’. There soon followed the Coronation of the King and Queen. He had left her in Scotland, from whence she was brought with a pompous Train, by many English Lords and Ladies of the first Quality, who went purposely from London to bring her and her Children thither. Prince Henry and the Princess Elizabeth accompanied fol. 402v her | into England. Prince Charles was left behind ’till the Year following, as not well enough to travel. The King chose to be crowned upon St James Day, from an idle Superstition for Identity of Names. As the Plague then raged terribly in London, he issued a Proclamation (a very frequent Effort of his Policy!) forbidding People to approach the Court upon Business ’till Winter.

4 ⎡himself⎤ 16 ⎡on⎤ 30 Conformity ⎡Identity⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

520

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 9

The next Thing remarkable was the Conference at Hampton Court between the Bishops and the Puritans.25 The latter were Calvinists, and believed the King to be one too, as he really was in Points of Doctrine, and had been all his Life not only a Conformist to the Calvinistical Kirk of Scotland, but a constant Champion for it; as I have above remarked. They now presented a Petition to the King, subscribed by near a thousand of them, defending their Principles, praying for a Toleration to themselves, and a Reformation of some Articles of the Church of England, such as their Consciences could not comply with. The | King, now a different Man from what he fol. 403r always professed himself in Scotland, was zealous for the Liturgy, which he had once called a bad Mass, as also for Episcopacy and episcopal Government. He however temporized, and professing to give both Parties a fair and equal Hearing, appointed the Conference; and to enhance the Force of Proclamations, which, by continually using them, he was making daily cheaper, he issued one, commanding both Parties to behave peaceably the while. The Conference lasted some Days: There appeared for the Church many Bishops together with Whitgift the Archbishop, many Deans and Doctors. A few Divines represented the Petitioners. The King assisted, not as a Spectator and Hearer, as the Dignity of a Prince and the Impartiality of a Judge required, but as a Disputant on one Side, and an Advocate for the Clergy; and a warm one he was. He opened the Debate with a Speech so plain and partial, that it might have satisfied the Petitioners that all their Hopes were lost. He

7 one ⎡a⎤ 12 ⎡Episcopacy and⎤ 25

A meeting called by James I at Hampton Court Palace in 1604 to discuss differences between the Puritans and the High Church Party. It was prompted by petitions from the Puritans, particularly the ‘Millenary Petition’, which was presented to James while he was on the way to London in April 1603. The conference met on 14, 16, and 18 January. James, who presided, was supported by Archbishop John Whitgift, eight bishops, seven deans, and two other clergy. The petitioners were represented by four Puritans of moderate views, led by John Rainolds (or Reynolds), president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. After the king had spent the first day discussing various topics with his supporters, the four Puritan representatives were admitted to the second day of the conference, and Rainolds was granted permission to present their grievances. One of his requests was for a new translation of the Bible, which resulted in the so-called Authorized Version, undoubtedly the most important result of the conference. Archbishop Whitgift died shortly after the conference ended, and was succeeded by Richard Bancroft.

The Reign of James I

521

declared, ‘that he would make no Innovations in the Government of fol. 403v the Church, which he knew | was approved of God. But he would

hear their Complaints and remove the Occasion of them’. He should have said more truly, that he would strengthen the Occasion of them. Doctor Reynolds, in the Name of the Complainants, urged the Ambiguity of some of the Church Articles, and instanced in what. The King answering for the Clergy, called their Objections Trifles, and reproached them for great presumption in troubling him with such. They had indeed greater Grievances to offer, ‘weak and unworthy Pastors in the Church; the Subscription required to the Book of Common Prayer, and the Government of the Church’, with Scruples of less moment, ‘the Cross, the Surplice’, etc. His Majesty answered all, and defended all, with great Warmth: He offered many Arguments, many Authorities, many Threats, and not a few Oaths; and multiplied the Proofs of his Learning, Sagacity, r fol. 404 Resolution and Zeal, to the Terror of his Opponents the | Puritans, and to the Admiration of the Churchmen, who had nothing left them to do, but to listen and praise. One of the Bishops (the first of the Bench and not the worst) declared, ‘that he verily believed his Majesty spoke by the Spirit of God’. He outdid the Ld Chancellor, who had only said, ‘he had heard that the Priesthood and Royalty were united: But now he saw it verified’.26 The Chancellor made the King only a Priest: The Archbishop made him almost a Deity. At the next Meeting, the Bishops who were called in first, presented the King with an Explanation of the Liturgy, and gave him such answers to all his Questions, as satisfied Him, about Excommunication, Oaths and Subscriptions, and all the Objections of the Puritans, to whom he ordered it to be read. The Managers finding all Reply to be to no purpose, made none. His Majesty then concluded this Mock Conference, which proved only what it was chiefly intended for, a Field for the King to display his Learning and Eloquence, fol. 404v together with his Attachment to the Church; I say he | concluded it as he began it, with a Speech. He exhorted ‘the Bishops to use Men of different Opinion with Mildness’: but commanded the Puritans

13 Warmth],: 23 Priest],: tThe 26

See Stewart, The Cradle King: A Life of James VI & I, pp. 191–205.

5

10

15

20

25

30

522

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 9

to preserve the Unity of the Church, and beware of Disobedience’. He told them, ‘that they were humoursome and busy, and their Scruples weak. The discreet amongst them would be gained over. The obstinate must be removed. The Bishops he undertook, should instruct and forbear them, for a Time: But if they persisted in Nonconformity, he would have recourse to Force’. In the Course of the Debate, the King frequently repeated a favorite Maxim of his, no Bishop, no King; as if the Order of Bishops were essential to Monarchy, when they had so frequently distressed and humbled Monarchs: Besides that the System of Church Government by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans and Chapters, savours much more of a Commonwealth. But the Kirk had curbed him, and the Bishops flattered him, and it was easie to guess whence the Preference arose in a Spirit like | his, who claimed to reign, as his Minions fol. 405r did for him, and the Bishops told him He might, without controul. He carried not his partiality for Episcopacy so high as his Son Charles did, who asserted it to be of Divine Right, a Lesson which the Bishops had taught him. But now the Intercourse of Flattery was begun between the King and the Clergy. It went on with incredible Excesses in all slavish, impious Tenets; neither did it end with this King, nor with the next. In this Conference King James had another View: It was to be a Signal for the Establishment of Bishops in Scotland; and his Majesty had called up from thence many Men of Character and many Ministers, who, with all the Rest of that Nation about the Court, were to hear the King’s Panegyric upon Episcopacy, with his hatred and Confutation of Puritanism. He sometime after published a Proclamation for the Banishment of Foreign Popish Priests and Jesuites; not for their Religion, but for some particular Tenets of theirs injurious to Kings. He | even com- fol. 405v plements the Pope in it, for many good Offices and Civilities received from him: By this double Dealing he lost the Hearts of the Protestants, without gaining the Papists, who aiming at all Power, despised limited Favour. The Papists were provoked at his Writing against them; whilst his Acting for them incensed the best Protestants.

3 ⎡them⎤ 29 Papists⎡riests⎤ 34 at] at

The Reign of James I

523

There soon followed another Proclamation against the Puritans, in a very different Stile from that against Papists, or rather against some popish Priests; for there he comforted the Catholics, ‘that he would be indulgent to all that had Consciences too tender to conform to the Church of England’: But as if the Puritans had had no Consciences amongst them, he promises them no such Indulgence; on the contrary they are doomed to conformity without Limitation, or to suffer without Mercy. The Clergy had as little Mercy as the King, and persecuted their r fol. 406 protestant Brethren without any. Whitgift a | Prelate of a Christian Spirit, was dead. Bancroft succeeded him in the Archbishoprick; a Man of an opposite Spirit, a zealous Persecutor and Flatterer, who fostered all the King’s arbitrary Notions, and gratified both the King and himself, by hunting the poor Puritans, who were Objects of special Hate upon all Accounts, as they could not allow the King’s Will to be Law, nor the Will of the Archbishop, to be Gospel. What use the King intended to make of the Bishops, he plainly shewed, when he declared ‘that whilst he could make what Bishops he pleased, he would have what Gospel he pleased’. He and the Bishops made a selfish use of one another. They found him weak enough to be for Their Purpose: He found them wicked enough to be for His. It is a terrible Position in any Kingdom, ‘that the King may do what he pleases’. In England it is a traiterous Position, and ought to be equally punished. Yet the Maintenance of that irreligious Position has lifted many irreligious, low Men, into high Preferments and spiritual Lordfol. 406v ships. All this will be | sadly seen in this and the following Reign: Nor will it stop there. The Proclamation against the Puritans, a nick Name which comprehended many pious Men, and all moderate Churchmen, was executed with rigour: That against the Priests and Jesuits with great Lenity, and they were embarked in the most convenient Places, I mean those of them that were really banished: A Mark of Lenity not extended to the Puritans! Many Clergymen who had not complying Consciences, were turned out of their Livings, to starve. It is to be feared many complied against their Consciences, rather than starve. Numbers, to escape the Fury of the Bishops, left the Kingdom, to its 24 ⎡lifted⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

524

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

great Loss, and their own great Distress. The public Strength was lessened for the Security of Ceremonies; public Peace was risked to humour the Clergy; and the meek Spirit of the Gospel banished, that the Church might flourish. All Persecution is a Departure from Christianity. Were these a Christian Clergy? Was this a wise and religious | King? fol. 407r He next published many Proclamations, against several popular Grievances, in order to sweeten the People. There followed one very offensive to the People, against Hunting, under terrible Penalties. But the most unguarded and threatening of all was still to come. In that for calling a Parliament to meet on the 19th of March the same Year (1603) he goes beyond all former Kings, and takes upon him to command what They had only advised, ‘what sort of Representatives the Nation was to return, and whoever made Returns (be they Counties or Cities, or Burroughs) contrary to these his Royal Injunctions in this Proclamation, were to be severely fined and the Persons returned, not to be admitted to sit’.27 He repeats the same strict Commands in the several Writs to chuse particular Members. Could there be a plainer Declaration of his Meaning, that he was Master of the Nation and of the Law, and would have both the Nation and the Representatives of the Nation, own as much, and exercise blind Obedience without Opposition or Dispute? | He had fol. 407v already, as it were, created a new House of Lords: He would now create a House of Commons, and be, in his own Person, all the three Estates. He who wanted Spirit to rule his Servants, and was always blindly ruled by them, sets up for unbounded Rule over three Kingdoms, and to abolish, or which amounts to the same Thing, to chuse their Representatives. This unnatural false Claim, had been long the Burden of his Conversation, and now he ventures to publish it. It was his Maxim, that the national Liberty and the Privileges of Parliament, were only Concessions from the King’s his Ancestors. A wild

7 ⎡several⎤ 27

James I’s accession speech to Parliament, delivered on 19 March 1603, was published shortly afterwards in London and Edinburgh, and printed in James’ Workes of 1616. See James I, Political Writings, ed. by Sommerville, pp. 132–146, 292.

The Reign of James I

525

Fancy; since then the Nation and Parliament must have given Power to the Princes to grant them such Concessions. The Grant of Money to the Crown, and often the Crown itself, was from the Parliament to the Prince. Did the Prince grant a Priviledge to the Parliament to grant the Prince Money? They who had the Direction of the public Purse, must surely have a Power to direct r fol. 408 how far | and how often it was to be opened. Such English Princes who assumed to levy money without Parliaments, and to make Laws, or to dispense with Laws, were always opposed, often deposed by Parliament. Even the Demesnes of the Crown were given to the Crown for the same reason and Purposes, for which the Crown itself was given; for the Support of the State, and to enable him to protect his People; and, in the profuse foolish Reign of Richard the 2d, a Prince intoxicated like James, with Fancies of uncontrollable Sovereignty, though evidently unequal to any, the Parliament ordered that, for the Future, the Demesnes of the Crown, which he was daily wasting, should be applied for supporting the King’s Wars. They applied the same as a public Fund to a public Use. Nor was the Royal Dignity considered as only personal to Him; but worne by him for the Maintenance of the high Office, which he bore for the Utility of the State. This Principle, founded in Reason and Nature, prevailed in the most arbitrary Governments. The Caliphs of Egypt, the Arafol. 408v bian, | Persian and Ottoman Princes, held the public Treasure so sacred as not to touch a Penny of it for their own personal Purposes. The Liberties of the People of England are not derived even from Magna Charta, but are presupposed and confirmed by it. By what Kings in England were such Privileges given to Parliament? Our best Princes have always allowed them: Our worst Princes would have destroyed them: Many have attempted to abolish them, and with them Parliaments; and all who did, paid dear for attempting it. If King James could have got rid of Parliaments, or made them useless, or only his Tax-masters; the Consequence would have been, three Kingdoms oppressed and drained to gorge Favorites, these Favorites rich and powerful, and their Master still poor; Minions preferred for their Face, or their Jests, Exercising Kingly Power, and 13 ⎡foolish⎤ 26 ⎡not⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

526

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 9

governing King and Kingdom. For whatever Power He assumed, They | abused and directed; whatever Treasure He possessed, They fol. 409r pocketed or wasted. It is a common Misfortune, that Princes unfit to govern, are equally unfit to chuse fit Ministers to govern in their Stead, yet are eager for Power in Proportion to their Insufficiency to use it, or to direct the Use of it: Such a Prince such Ministers have need of, and miserable must be that People who have not free Representatives to defend them from such misrule and oppression. Such Representatives must be made by a Free Choice. The Electors must chuse such as are fit to judge of the public Wants, how much Money is to be raised to supply them, how much the Public can afford to raise; and must see the Application of the Nation’s Money to national Purposes, and to the Redress of all national Grievances. It follows that these Representatives must enjoy what they always enjoyed or claimed, the necessary Privileges of Coming and Going, and Meeting in Safety, Security to their Persons, Liberty of Debate, with Power over their own Members and Officers, of assessing the represented, and receiving | and examining their Com- fol. 409v plaints, of punishing such as have injured them, and by proper Laws securing them against Injuries for the Future. His Speech to the Parliament was a tedious Harangue, such as was never made by a King. He tells them that, ‘no sooner had it pleased God to lighten his hand and relent the violence of his devouring Angel, but he resolved to call his Parliament, and that for three Principal Reasons. First that they who represented the whole Kingdom and all Sorts of People in it, might hear with their own Ears what he out of his own Mouth was to deliver to them, the Assurance of his due Thanks for their joyful and general Applause in receiving and declaring him in that Seat’ (the Throne). He tells them, ‘it was a Throne which, by his Birth Right and Lineal Descent God had provided for Him, upon the Demise of the late Queen, upon whom he bestows some Eloquence’; that she was ‘a Queen of famous | Memory, full of Days, but fuller of immortal Trophies and fol. 410r Honour, now called out of this transitory Life’. He says, ‘he is not able to express by Words, or utter by Eloquence, the vive Image of his

6 – 7 want; ⎡have need of,⎤ 12 ⎡and must⎤ 13 ⎡to2⎤ 14 Gri⎡e⎤vances 18 inquiring into ⎡examining⎤ 29 ⎡in⎤ 32 ⎡that she was⎤

The Reign of James I

527

inward Thankfulness’; but assures them, that ‘they may expect a measure of Thankfulness which is suitable to the Infiniteness of their Deserts’; (an Engagement which he never once fulfilled) ‘and to his Ability and Inclination, to requite the same’. So far perhaps he made his Promise good. He then grows still more Rhetorical. ‘Shall he ever, or can he ever be able, or rather so unable in Memory, as to forget their unexpected Readiness and Alacrity, their ever memorable Resolution, and their most wonderful Conjunction and Harmony of Hearts, in declaring and embracing Him, Him as their undoubted and lawful King ’: A Doctrine which he will again and always inculcate, to satisfy Parliament and People that he only thanks them for doing him justice. After this Piece of Art, comes further Eloquence: ‘shall it ever be fol. 410v blotted out of | my Mind, how, at my first Entry into this Kingdom, the People of all sorts rode and ran, nay rather flew, to meet me; their Eyes flaming nothing but Sparkles of Affection; their Mouthes and Tongues uttering nothing but Sounds of Joy; their Hands, Feet, and all the Rest of their Members, in their Gestures discovering a passionate Longing and Earnestness to meet and embrace their new Sovereign?’ Then he has a Rapture of Latin: ‘Quid ergo retribuam?’28 He despises ‘Lip-payment, and always mislikes such sort of Debtors as paid their Creditors with a smooth Tongue, as not meaning to pay their Debts in more substantial Coin’. It will be seen hereafter, how pithily he was here describing himself, and what Faithless Returns he made for such affectionate national Reception and Usage. It was his constant false Policy to give fair equivocal Words, and to labour to outwit: This he called King Craft; a low Phrase, and a Practice r fol. 411 beneath a Man, whence he only exposed himself | to mistrust, contempt and dislike. He proceeds, splitting Distinctions, boasting his laudable Gratitude and Intentions, and magnifying ‘the Blessings which were in his Persons, bestowed upon them all’. He mentions particularly the great Blessing of Peace. A strange Topic for self praise! He had never been at war with any Prince, and succeeded a Princess who had, with her

4 ⎡perhaps⎤ 8 their1] most wonderful 26 ⎡labour to⎤ 28

What, therefore, shall I give in return? (Psalms 116. 12)

5

10

15

20

25

30

528

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

Crown, bequeathed him universal Peace, by humbling her Enemies abroad, and subduing Rebellion at home. Ireland was reduced. Spain was suing for Peace, which James, frightened by the very name of War, was in such Haste to end, that he recalled all Queen Elizabeth’s Letters of Marque against that Crown, contrary to all true Policy, to all sound Remonstrances against such a rash Step, and to the great Hurt and Discouragement of the English Nation. Spain made a proper Use of this passionate Propensity in James, and not only gained Peace but the intire Ascendent over the King, and governed all his foreign many of his domestic Counsels all his Days, as will be largely seen. After many idle conceited Words | about War and Peace, espe- fol. 411v cially the Peace attending his Person (a Phrase which he repeats over and over) and quoting at large David’s Recital of his Deliverance from the Jaws of the Lion and of the Bear;29 as he is fond of Method and Division, he goes on to what he calls a second Head, but in Reality is the same with the first. ‘It is Peace again, Peace in his Person, but domestic Peace, by the Accession of a King lineally descended from Henry the seventh, whence was confirmed and united, in Him (King James) the Union of the two Houses of York and Lancaster ’.30 Every Prince upon the English Throne might have said the same of himself or herself. His Aim in it was politic and poor. He insinuated that his Right was purely Hereditary, nowise derived from Parliament, and unluckily mentions his Descent from Henry the seventh, who was Heir to neither of the contending Houses, but being in Possession of the Crown, got it confirmed to him by Parliament. For, of all Kings since the Conquest, he | had the least Pretence to hereditary Right: fol. 412r So that he was chiefly beholden to Parliamentary Right; as were all that succeeded him, King James included; neither did more than half the Kings, since the Conquest, reign by any other Right, I do not say better, for it is the best. Such as reigned successively, from Father to Son, and were thence called lineal Heirs, sprang from An-

5 Mark ⎡Marque⎤ 10 ⎡ many of his domestic⎤ 29

I Samuel 17. 34–36. The Lancastrian King Henry VII united the roses by marrying Elizabeth of York, the daughter of Edward IV, on 18 January 1486. 30

The Reign of James I

529

cestors who reigned by Parliamentary Right, having no other; a Right to which all our wisest Princes had recourse, and upon which they depended as the only secure one. King James in claiming a natural and lineal Right, not only trusted to a Chimera, but set every Subject who could read and remember, upon discovering that it was one. Neither was the Folly of it confined to Him, and the pernicious Consequences of it to his Times, but extended to his Race and Generations to come. He proceeds next to the Advantages accruing from the Union of the two Crowns made in his Blood, and illustrates the same by fol. 412v Examples, that ‘an Army of forty | thousand, is the double of an Army of twenty thousand; that a Baron, who doubles his Estate, is doubly richer; that great Mountains are made of small Motes; that many petty Seignories make a large Kingdom, which is weaker when rent into little ones, as this was under the Heptarchy, and that England is strengthened by the Addition of Wales. How highly then must that Strength be raised by the Union of Scotland, that ancient and famous Kingdom. Both Kingdoms were before united in Language, Religion and Manners, in one Island, encompassed with one Sea; so that the late Borderers upon each, cannot now distinguish their own Borders; Kingdoms never separated by Sea or Mountain, or great River, or any great Strength of Nature, but only by little small Brooks, or little demolished Walls’. But the great advantage of all is yet to come, and immediately follows. ‘Both Nations were now united, the Right and Title to Both, were united in His Person, a Perfol. 413r son a like | lineally descended from both Crowns’. Here he displays the Inconveniencies attending their Separation, and adds, ‘what God hath conjoined let no man separate. I am the Husband and the whole Island is my lawful Wise: I am the Head, and it is my lawful Wife: I am the Head, and it is my Flock: No Man I hope will be so unreasonable as to think that I who am a christian King under the Gospel, should be a Polygamist and the Husband of two Wives, that I being the Head, should have a divided and monstrous Body; or that being the Sheepherd to so fair a Flock (whose Fold hath no wall to hedge it, but the Four Seas) should have my Flock parted in two’. He is sure that every ‘honest Subject must be glad of this joyful Union; and 19 the ⎡one2⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

530

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 9

none but the blind and malitious Enemies to a well governed Commonwealth, and Fishers in troubled Waters, can dislike it. The two Kingdoms, which, in their Honour and Privileges, could not be divided from their Sovereign, were now joined in his Person’. He goes on and shews his Reading, especially in the History of England and | France, and proves that they Both were stronger by the fol. 413v intire Union of their several Parts, Counties and Dutchies, under one Monarch. He illustrates his Reasoning by the Example of ‘Brooks running into Great Rivers, and Great Rivers being lost in the Ocean’. If the Saxon Kingdoms were ‘happily united being conquered by the Spear of Bellona; how much more happy was this greater Union fastened by the Wedding Ring of Astrea. Scotland had had the most imperfect half of his Life: England was to enjoy the last and perfect half ’. He could not think any Body would be so injurious, as to cut one half of him from the other. But he rests assured that all who heard him, did in their Hearts applaud this his Discourse. I have dropped few of his Expressions: For indeed they are singular, but singularly copious. He next congratulates his People upon the Blessing of the hopeful Issue, which God had granted him, for the Propagation of the undoubted | ‘Right which was in his Person’. fol. 414r Two of them were present, Prince Henry and the Princess Elizabeth, hopeful indeed, till his strange measures damped and marred all their Hopes, and the Hopes of the Public from them. His next Head (for he has not half done) is Religion, where he has many pathetic Observations, with many Texts from Scripture, and lavishes too many Professions of Sincerity to be believed sincere: By what follows he seems conscious that he is not. He will not allow the Name of Religion to the Puritans, but calls them a Sect; ‘though he owns that they differed not so far from the Church in Points of Religion, as in their confused Form of Policy and Purity’. A very unfair Censure; since many of them were Members of the Church; and so far from Confusion in Worship, that they sought after less, and fewer Ceremonies. He said as untruly, that they were against all Superiority; because they were against arbitrary Power, either in the King or the Bishops.

5 ⎡in⎤

The Reign of James I

531

Before he proceeds to speak of | the Papists, he makes a long Preface of his own Faith, and his Zeal to the protestant Religion; all evidently to hide and deny, what he was just going to declare, his strong Prejudices in Favour of Popery. He acknowledges the Church of Rome ‘to be our Mother Church, though defiled with some Infirmities and Corruptions’. He is no Enemy to their Church, but would have them reform their Errors; ‘not wishing the Downthrowing of the Temple, but to have it cleansed’. He declares, ‘that he was ever free from Persecution or enthralling his Subjects in Matter of Conscience’. Observe, this soft Language is addressed to the Papists; and therefore he here forgets his uncharitable Measures and Proclamations against the Puritans. He even appeals to the Papists ‘whether they have not experienced his Tenderness, and whether, far from encreasing their Burdens, he hath not lightened them’. He goes a great Step farther, and refers it to the Parliament to soften the Laws against fol. 415r them, and suggests that | the Judges had been too rigorous in the Execution of the Laws. He distinguishes between Papists and Papists, and finds Excuses for the Popish Laity, except such of them as were disturbers of the Government: And against their Clergy, he has but one material Objection, where they hold the Power of the Pope to depose Kings; and here he falls heavily upon their King-Killing Tenets. If they will depart from these frightful Positions, so alarming to himself, ‘he wishes for a Union with the Papists’, and declares Himself ready to meet them half way, or, as he expresses it, in the MidWay, and talks of ‘his Reverence to Antiquity (the antiquity of Rome) in Points of Ecclesiastical Policy’. What he says of his Faith being founded on the Word of God, seems plainly said for a Colour only. His Advice to the Papists is equally unmeaning and rambling: He ‘will not hurt their Persons; but drops a Dislike to their Errors’, such Errors as struck at his Person and Government. He also addresses himself to the Bishops and Preaches to them fol. 415v and the Clergy. | They are to ‘be careful and vigilant, both in Doctrine and Example’. He complements the Bishop of Durham upon a learned Saying, in his Sermon that Morning, and tells them all that the Devil was a busy Bishop. fol. 414v

8 he] he 13 whether] they 18 them ⎡Laws⎤ 35 ⎡all⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

532

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

His Harangue upon the making and execution of Laws, is Trite and Declamatory, like the rest. He quotes a Text from Scripture, and one from Tacitus.31 He professes his great public Spirit, and with equal Sincerity, appeals to God for his readiness to execute all good Laws. He tells the Judges how they are to judge, and explains to them their Duty and Qualifications under three Heads: Two of these were Courage and Probity; Words of strange sound out of his Mouth. The other was Knowledge, a Name as unhappily chosen, if he meant by it solid and practical Knowledge, such as was of use in a State. After many empty Words and Distinctions, some Latin, and a Paraphrase upon the Word Inutilis, he proceeds to | explain the Dif- fol. 416r ference between a King and a Tyrant: ‘The Tyrant thinks his Kingdom given him to gratify his desires. A just King owns himself appointed to procure the Happiness of his People’. His own Reign will make it plain which of the two Characters is most applicable to himself. He will appear so far from studying the Welfare of his People, that the longer he lived the less they flourished: all national Felicity and honour sunk under him; all the Royal Revenue, all Supplies from his Subjects, were not sufficient to gratify his Cravings; little of it applied to public Purposes; none to support public Dignity, but all lavished upon Luxury and Minions. He cajoles the Parliament with his parental Tenderness and Care: ‘If They be rich, He cannot be poor’; but he puts them in mind, that ‘He is their Head and Governor, and They are his Vassals’. He indeed owns that, ‘though a King and People be Relata, yet a King who wants Subjects, cannot be a King’. He adds that, ‘though he was | Joy- fol. 416v fully received by all, and is thankful to all, yet he cannot gratify all: But he had gratified some. As, in Matters of Blame, says his Majesty, quod a multis peccatur, impune peccatur; so in Matters of Merit, no particular Man can claim thanks for what is done by all Men’. As he deals copiously in Proofs and Illustrations, he shews at large the impossibility of rewarding all Men. ‘If he had bestowed Honours upon all Men, no Man could have been advanced to Honour: For,

6 Heads],: tTwo 12 Tyrant1],: 17 flourished],: 31 at] at 31

Tacitus, Annales, 3. 27: ‘Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges’ (‘in the worst commonwealth there are most laws’).

The Reign of James I

533

Degrees of Honour imply the Advancement of some above their Fellows. If every Man had a like Access to his Person, then no Man could have it’. He gives a sound Reason: ‘Because, says he, my privy Chamber cannot contain all Men. If he had bestowed Recompences upon every Man, the Fountain of his Liberality had been exhausted’. He then acquaints them, ‘why he had distinguished some more than fol. 417r others; because They wanted it, or deserved it; as also why he let | run some small Brooks out of the Fountain of his Thankfulness, for the refreshing of particular Members of the Multitude’. After all this Eloquence, he excuses himself for not having been more Eloquent and adds what Reasons he might alledge; such as ‘the great Weight of his Affairs, and continual Business’ (in hearing Flattery, encouraging Flatterers, writing Proclamations and following Dogs) ‘whence he had not a Moment’s Time to think of what he had to say to them, till the very Instant he came there’, (as they might perceive from such a long and studied harangue!) ‘together with the Impressions which he might feel upon this his first Sight of so famous and honourable an Assembly’. But the true Reason (as true as most of his Speech) ‘was his love of Plainness and Sincerity’ since, ‘such, in his Opinion was the only Eloquence becoming a King’. It had been well for Him, well for his People and for his Posterity, if this had v fol. 417 been his Principle, as much as the Contrary was notoriously | his Practice. ‘The Speeches of Kings says he, should be free from Ambiguity and every double Sense; such as were found in the Pagan Oracles. A King should be above all Men in Sincerity, as well as in Honour, and his Tongue be ever the true Messenger of his Heart: A sort of Eloquence which they might assuredly look for at his Hands’. Not to dwell upon the strange phrase of Eloquence from Hands, it was not Politic in him to give them a Picture of Himself so unlike himself. But this too was an Effort of his boasted King craft, such as exposed the whole; since his whole Conduct contradicted his Speech, and he constantly studied to reign by Deceit and low Cunning. From the high Strains and marvellous self sufficiency in this long, heavy Harangue, it was evident that the King promised himself wonderful Admiration, Praises and Complacency from the Parliament. He was sorely disappointed. For, except the Bishops and some pop28 his ⎡the strange phrase of⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

534

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 9

ish Lords, with the immediate | Flatterers about him, none were or fol. 418r could be pleased with it. It was a laboured Declamation, stuffed with conceited Words, unworthy of a King, strange to the Ears of the Parliament, and utterly unsuitable to the Dispatch of public Business, and to the Dignity of the State. A great Part of it was laughed at, and all of it was disliked. All moderate Protestants were scared with his open partiality to Popery. The Puritans were incensed at his declared Antipathy to Them, and his Resolution to punish Them, as public Enemies, whilst he made such kind Advances to the Papists, after he had lived a Calvinist from his Cradle, still professed to hold all the Doctrines of Calvin, and now only censured the Discipline of the Calvinistical Kirk, which he had for so many Years defended and pretended to admire. Even the bigotted Papists, that is, the most numerous, (as Bigotry is essential to Popery,) were so far from being pleased with his uncommon offer to meet them half way, that they were provoked that he would not come the whole way. For with Bigots, as every | Part of what they call Religion, is sacred, the most shocking fol. 418v Parts are the most sacred. His High Conceit of himself could not but be manifest to all Men, with his mean Affectation of deep wisdom and learning, his pedantic Stile and Comparisons; and above all, the wonderful Importance of his Person, and the unalienable successive Right centered in it. In his Person He had brought them a Title never to be disputed, and therefore Peace never to End; so that all their Joy for his Succession was no more than just, all due to a Master and Deliverer; though he condescended to return them Thanks. The Tenour of his Speech upon the whole, was so far from satisfying the Parliament, that it gave them great Disgust and Suspicion, such as daily increased, and had daily Cause. So early did he let them see his vain Notions and Infatuation about his sovereign and uncontroulable Power. All his Averments of the undoubted Title to the Crown confined to his Person, | as if he wanted no other, did not scare the Parliament fol. 419r from recognizing his Right by an Act, as the surest Support of it against other Claimants and intestine Broils: And it was probably his dread of such that induced him to pass it. They then proceeded to a Project recommended to them by the King’s Zeal for it, though it

19 of] the

The Reign of James I

535

was defeated by his Folly; I mean the Union of the two Kingdoms, and the Parliament appointed Commissioners to examine upon what Terms it might be effected. The Scheme was unpopular, and decried amongst the English, who seeing the Scots already possessing Places, Pensions, Wealth, rich Heiresses and Titles beyond Measure, had no mind to enable them to engross all. They saw what Advantages would accrue to the Scots in England whilst the English had none to expect from Scotland. They saw what they deemed their Birth right lavished upon the Scots, who thence lived in such magnificence, that the English, having nothing but their Estates to maintain them, were ruined by striving to keep up their Credit and Charfol. 419v acter in | not living below their new Guests, who thus doubly injured them. There was a provocation still more essential. These NewComers were known Flatterers of the King’s Conceit of unlimited Power, that he might lawfully trample upon the Laws, and being the Protector of all Men, might oppress all Men, whilst These Flatterers and Strangers were the chief Gainers by the Oppression. No wonder that they became the Objects of much popular Indignation, Invectives, satyrical Jests and Ballads. Besides the King’s Weakness and Partiality were such that he would have Scotland treated as the full Half of the whole Island, notwithstanding its infinite and obvious Disparity to England in Riches and Numbers. It was therefore no wonder that, though Commissioners from both Kingdoms met, they concluded Nothing. Further Discouragements were ministered and multiplied every Day, and the Union rendered more and more distastefol. 420r ful and impracticable. It became quite impossible | when he disobliged the Parliament as he soon did, though by them only it could have been accomplished. Yet he had such Confidence in the Force of his Eloquence and Their Compliance, that, as if the Point were already carried, he caused the Arms of the two Kingdoms to be quartered in the Royal Standard, and himself to be proclaimed King of Great Britain.32

5

10

15

20

25

30

28 ⎡have⎤ 32

James repeatedly (but unsuccessfully) turned to Parliament to enact the union between England and Scotland. He touched on the issue in his accession speech of 1604, while the 1607 one was prevalently devoted to the question.

536

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

Presuming now that the Commons who had treated him with great Reverence, which he construed to be Subserviency, would sacrifice their Privileiges to his Commands, and trusting to the Success of his Proclamation directed to their Principals for the Choice of such Members as he liked; he interfered in a very tender Point.33 In a contested Election for the County of Buckingham, between Sr Francis Goodwin and Sr John Fortescue, the House had voted Sr Francis duly elected. The King or his Minions not liking Sr Francis, or for a Specimen of his Power over the Parliament, procured from the Lords a Message to the Commons for a Conference about it, when it was over. The Thing was unprecedented, and the Commons startled. | They answered with spirit, that They would agree to no fol. 420v such Conference, as they were not bound to account for their Proceedings. The Lords replied that the King had ordered them to confer with the Commons about the Affair, as he conceived his Honour concerned to have it debated in the House over again. An odd Reason in both the King and the Lords. The King was bound in Honour to violate the Immunities and Independancy of the Commons, and the Lords assisted the King. The Commons acquainted the King by their Speaker, why they could not admit this Innovation. The King then commanded them to confer with the Judges. An Innovation still worse, and a Command equally arbitrary, which gave equal Disgust. The Commons, in a Memorial presented to the Council, desired that their Privileiges might not be violated. The King, still ill advised, and fond of being Master, repeated his last Commands, and insisted upon Compliance. The Commons, rather than be accused of quarreling with the | King, agreed to hear the Judges, but were fol. 421r fully resolved never to depart from their late Determination. Probably James, embarrassed in an unlucky and unjust Attempt, would have been forced upon inglorious Concessions, had not the Generosity of Sr Franis relieved him, by giving up his Seat in Parliament, and moving for a Writ to chuse another Member.

2 which] he 3 Privil⎡e⎤iges 4 [[...]] ⎡directed⎤ 24 Privile⎡i⎤ges 33

In summoning the Parliament, King James directed that returns of parliamentary elections were to be sent to the Court of Chancery: if irregularities were found, a second election was to be held.

The Reign of James I

537

The King, who had allarmed the Parliament, was himself alarmed to find neither his Directions for chusing Members, nor his Commands to the Members when chosen, could procure him a supple Parliament; though he had thought his directions decisive, and his Commands uncontroullable. The Commons convinced him still further of his vain opinion and mistaken Policy. They considered the late Attempt as a Trial of their Spirit; and as a proof of their Vigour, they presented him with an Address, explaining and asserting their Privileiges, with a civil Insinuation how imperfectly he knew them. They also remonstrated against some popular Grievances, a Stile equally unacceptable to his tender Ears. This their uncourtly Zeal for the | Preservation of themselves, and fol. 421v of the Nation, whom they represented, and were chosen to protect, so provoked this Father of the Nation, that though, like dutiful Sons, they had granted him large Supplies, and flattered him with a barbarous Act against Witchcraft, and the like non-existing Crimes, in Conformity to his wonderful Doctrine and Discoveries concerning the Authors of such, that he prorogued them for half a Year, after they had sat about three Months. His dislike of Parliaments and Puritans, however threatening to the Nation and all virtuous Men in it (for all Men of moderate Principles, and tender Conscience, all who soothed not the reigning Vices, all who opposed lawless Prerogative, and blamed the servile Strains at Court, as well as the pious Fooleries in the Church, were branded for Puritans), I say the King’s dislike of Parliaments and Puritans and his hatred of the Constitution and all that loved it, fol. 422r found many prevailing and reverend Advocates. The | Ministers, the Bishops, with the Archbishop at their Head, together with all hot Church-men, who are generally the Majority, and all who sought and found their Account in humouring his impotent Lust for unbounded Power, loudly espoused and preached, and defended the fashionable Tenets of absolute Submission to the Crown, and absolute Conformity to the Church. For, Churchmen would not make so ill a Bargain for themselves, as to compliment the King with passive Obedi-

5

10

15

20

25

30

5 uncontro⎡u⎤llable 9 Privile⎡i⎤ges | how] not 25 Puritans] hatred of the Constitution and all that loved it) | ) | | King]| ’s | ⎡dislike of⎤ found many, 25 – 26 ⎡hatred Parliaments and Puritans and his⎤ 26 hat⎡r⎤ed 27 ⎡found many⎤

538

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

ence, unless he paid Them the like Complement. The present Set were so explicite and clear in this shocking Principle, and universal Compliance with the King’s worst Measures, especially his arbitrary Claims, and his Advances to the Papists, that they seemed to have forgot themselves to have been Protestants and Englishmen; and, in their Antipathies and Cruelty to their protestant Brethren, not to have remembered, that they were Christians. Hence the Beginning of the popular Dislike to Churchmen, such as in the next Reign had a terrible Effect upon the Church itself; and as by their Attempts | to fol. 422v exalt the Priesthood they pulled it down, the Crown had the same Fate from the same Attempts. The Kingdom could not always bear such unhallowed Principles and correspondent Practises. But of this in its Course. Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, a furious Champion for advancing the Royal Prerogative, in all Instances tending equally to advance the Prerogative of Churchmen, made a bold, I think a treasonable Attempt (as all Attempts certainly are, which would subvert the Constitution) to abolish Parliaments, by transferring to the King the Power of Parliaments, to dispence with (that is to abolish) Laws made by Parliament, and by investing him with the Authority of the three Estates. The Judges had given high Offence to the Churchmen, by executing, as they were obliged by their Oath and Duty, the Laws against ecclesiastical Delinquencies, which were many scandalous and oppressive, not only frequent Pluralities, such as shewed that | Religion was turned into a Market, but the Excesses of the fol. 423r ecclesiastical Courts, with their arbitrary Oaths imposed contrary to Law and Conscience. It gave the Bishops and Clergy unpardonable Offence, that the Judges should presume to check their Exorbitances, and grant Prohibitions against their Oppressions, though the Judges were sworn to grant the same. The Archbishop therefore knowing for whom and to whom and for what he was to apply, full of his own dangerous Designs, and secure in the King’s Vanity and silly Maxims, presented to the King and Council these mock Grievances of the Clergy under many

25 ⎡a⎤ 29 Opp⎡r⎤essions

The Reign of James I

539

Heads, praying for Redress. They were called Articuli Cleri.34 The King had encouraged this Application; since the Archbishop had flattered him, that, in taking upon himself all Regulations concerning the Clergy, the whole Body would not only depend upon himself, but he would set himself above the Parliament, in annulling by his own Authority whatever the Parliament had enacted. This was v fol. 423 most subdolous Advice; since this very Archbishop, | besides his publickly maintaining the Episcopal Jurisdiction to be jure Divino, derived immediately from Heaven, consequently from no Prince or Power upon Earth, meant so to manage the King as to exercise all the Power himself, whilst he mocked the Monarch with the Name of it. So little was He, so little were the Clergy awed or restrained by the solemn Oaths which they had all taken, that they pretended to no power, jurisdiction, or authority whatsoever, spiritual or temporal, but what they derived from the Law, which they were now most impiously renouncing and appealing from it to the King, inviting Him also to violate his Coronation Oath and to defy the Law. James was scared by sounder Advice from following the desperate Counsel of the Archbishop, though he liked it best. He was told the Danger of such direct Invasion of the Jurisdiction of Parliament. This fol. 424r frightened him: He however consulted the Judges, and | They confirmed his Fears. Soon after the Prorogation, the Peace with Spain, which had been some time in Agitation, was concluded; a Peace worse to the Nation than a War, though not to the Courtiers, who, in this and almost every other measure, gained in Riches and Honours from public Loss and Disgrace. They were charged upon this Occasion to have reaped a golden Harvest, which was not presently over, but continued to yield them plentiful Fruit, at least till next Session of Parliament. For they improved the Interval with notable Iniquity and Vigour, in procuring to a Company, we may easily guess for what large Compensations, a Monopoly of the Trade to Spain and Italy; from which all his Majesty’s other Subjects were excluded; an exclu-

5

10

15

20

25

30

34 In these famous ‘Articles of Abuses’, Bancroft sustained that the ecclesiastical courts were amenable for their proceedings to the crown alone. While he magnified the royal authority over the ecclesiastical courts, the Archbishop’s real aim was to make the courts independent of the law.

540

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 9

sion pernicious to Trade and the Kingdom, but big with Lucre to the King’s Minions, who yet were never satiated, though besides these unjust and immense Gains and incessant profuse Bounties from all Men for all Favours, they had not only devoured great Part of their Master’s ordinary great Revenues, | but of the Subsidy granted to fol. 424v Queen Elizabeth, and not touched by her; a Subsidy of three hundred thousand Pounds, intended by her, and by those who gave it, for the public Service, now lavished upon such as she would have scorned, such as were odious to the Public and draining its Vitals, but such as the King loved, for hurting and misleading Him. Nor was all that he gave them enough for them. This very Year he borrowed large Sums from the wealthy Citizens upon the Security of his Privy Seal. He greatly raised the Customs, particularly that upon Tobacco, a Weed so profitable to him, and against which he had written an elaborate Invective.35 These Customs were farmed, and the Money advanced by the Farmers. The Parliament too had given a liberal Supply. All these Sums, such as would have supported the late frugal Queen for some Years, in all her heavy Wars at home and abroad, lasted not King James six Months. Besides his unbounded Waste to Favorites, he wasted as much in | Embassies, as Elizabeth did upon fol. 425r her Fleets. For he dealt much in Embassies, as they humoured his Passion for Peace upon any Terms; and upon Provocations, where she would have sent Heralds, He sent Embassadors. The Earl of Nottingham, Ld High Admiral,36 went to Spain with a marvellous Retinue, of near seven hundred Persons, to the great amazement of the grave prudent Spaniards, who were likewise astonished at the comely Personages of the English, whom their Priests had pictured to them as transformed by divine Judgment into the Likenesses of Devils, for

5 Revenu⎡e⎤s 7 ⎡by2⎤ | ⎡who⎤ 35

In his Counterblaste to Tobacco (1604) James blamed native Americans for bringing tobacco to Europe, complained about passive smoking, and warned of the dangers to the lungs. While Elizabeth I had only levied a tax of two pence a pound on tobacco, James raised it to six shillings and eight pence. However, he had a change of heart when tobacco started to become a lucrative cash crop in his new Virginia colony. 36 Charles Howard, the first earl of Nottingham (1536–1624), commander of the English forces during the battles against the Spanish Armada.

The Reign of James I

541

rejecting the Pope. They had particularly represented Sr Francis Drake as half Man and half Dragon. Wilson who mentions this, adds a just Reflexion, that it is thus ‘easie for these Juglers, when they have once bound up the Conscience, to tye up the Understanding also’.37 The Earl of Hertford went on another pompous Embassy to the Archduke, Governor of the Spanish Netherlands, and residing at Brussels. I mention it the rather because, in the Earl’s Passage thither, fol. 425v there happened a Thing, which shewed the | different Spirit of this Reign from that of the last. A Dutch Man of War sailing by and refusing to strike, the brave English Captain Sr William Monson, was preparing with just Indignation, to force him; but was restrained by the Earl. This was the more scandalous, as the Dutch had not only never before offered such an Indignity to their Protectors, the Sovereigns of the Sea, but were not yet owned as a Sovereign State by any Sovereign State in Europe; nor durst they have defended it, had James demanded Reparation. The English grieved and murmured, and sighed for Queen Elizabeth. James who thought his weakness Wisdom, and his lowness Policy, bore the Affront, rather than ask amends; much less would he venture to force it. By his Tameness he fostered the Jealousy of the English towards the Dutch; as he continued to do more and more their Disgusts against the Scots. Nor did he allay the same, as he hoped he should, by hanging in England Thomas fol. 426r Douglas, | a notorious Criminal of State, who had counterfeited the King’s Privy Seal in several German Courts. This Piece of Justice had little Merit. One Scotchman was punished as a Traitor: All the rest were carressed, and the English incensed. The King was charmed with Ease and Flattery, and continued profuse in his Favours, Bounties and Dignities to His Flatterers. What was due to the Deserving, the Undeserving enjoyed; the disappointed complained; the most wary grumbled, few were mute, and the People railed. James was less than any acquainted with public Discontentents, and thus, lulled in Luxury, Incence and Repose, was roused though little mended, by an unexpected Allarm.

5

10

15

20

25

30

3 Reflextion 22 hanging] a [[...]] 25 ⎡Scotchman⎤ 37

Wilson, The History of Great Britain, Being the Life and Reign of King James the First, quoted in Rapin-Thoyras, The History of England for the year 1604 (note z).

542

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 9

All his Soothings of the Papists, all his Advances towards them, all his Arts to sweeten and manage them, could not prevent them from forming a dreadful Scheme, to destroy him, and with him the Lords and Commons, by an Explosion of Gun-powder placed under the House of Lords, to be fired when the King was delivering his Speech to both Houses.38 A diabolical Scheme, the more dreadful as | it was practicable, and near its execution, before it was dis- fol. 426v covered. Neither was it incredible even before the Discovery. Popery always implies Bigotry; and Men are Bigots in all Religions where they dare not dispute what their Teachers tell them about Religion. There is therefore no excess of Bigotry, nor Pitch of Iniquity and Horrour, to which their Teachers may not mislead and inflame them. Their Spirit is resigned and passive to all Impressions, and where the blackest Murder is thought meritorious, they will become zealous to commit it, nay will suspect all checks from Mercy and Humanity, as the Snares and Temptations of the Devil. If the Massacre of Infidels and Heretics (for whomsoever their Priests call so, They are obliged to believe to be so) be the certain Way to purchase Heaven to true Believers, and to make Saints of Sinners, what true Believer, Sinner or Saint, would not think Heaven and the Glory of Saintship worthy of such a Purchase? What pious Professor would like to be | up- fol. 427r braided by his Conscience for Lukewarmness in Religion, or bear such a Reproach from his Guide, who can punish him with eternal Damnation, as well as reward his blind Submission and barbarous Zeal with everlasting Bliss? When a Crown of Glory can be earned by Profligates, who deserve a Gibbet; and be earned not only without any Reformation of Life, but even by multiplying Crimes

2 ⎡all his Arts to sweeten and manage them,⎤ 3 ⎡the⎤ 5 and ⎡to be⎤ 15 ⎡will⎤ 21 ⎡like to⎤ 26 ⎡and be⎤ 38

The famous Gunpowder Plot was a failed attempt to assassinate King James I made by a group of provincial English Catholics led by Robert Catesby. The plan was to blow up the House of Lords during the State Opening of Parliament on 5 November 1605, as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands. James’ nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, was to be installed on the throne of England (and, presumably, Ireland and Scotland) as a Catholic monarch. Other conspirators included Catesby’s cousin Thomas Winter, a friend named John Wright, Sir Everard Digby, Sir Thomas Percy (a relative of Henry, the ninth earl of Northumberland), and a mercenary called Guy Fawkes, who had recently returned from the wars in the Low Countries.

The Reign of James I

543

and gratifying their worst Passions by what cancels all Crimes, the Pursuit of deadly Vengeance against Heresy; what true Catholic would not be an Adventurer? Nay what Murderer would not pursue his Trade, or even begin it, upon such high and irresistible Encouragement? Nor is this Infatuation and impious Spirit confined to Catholics, though They have cultivated and practised it beyond all other Sects. Any Sect which would punish any Man for any Opinion, as almost all Sects would do, and do, where they can, is in the straight Road to the same impious Excesses, perhaps too with a pious Intention. Whoever thinks his own Faith the safest, will be apt to fol. 427v think it kindness and | merit to force others into it, if he cannot persuade them. If he think it the only safe one; his Zeal will become Rage, and his Charity Slaughter; and where he finds men so much in the wrong as not to let him save them, he will judge it right to destroy Them, to terrify others, by their Example, into the true Faith, which, is allways his own: Truth, when against Him, is damnable Error, and all such Error calls for Racks and Extirpation. Some made a Distinction upon this Occasion between violent Papists and moderate Papists. God forbid I should deny that many Papists are naturally moderate. But I think it impossible to be a Papist without being a Bigot; and Bigotry excludes all Moderation. A man very mild by Nature, may be furious in Bigotry. Zeal for the Cause fires the coolest Constitution; and a person unable to whip a Dog, would burn a Heretic. A tender Lady in Spain shocked at the death of a Chicken, feels Joy in Transports, to see a Jew broiled in fol. 428r Flames | for what appears Merit in herself, namely Perseverance in his Faith for a Reason as good as hers, ‘because he was brought up in it’. Had the Powder Plot succeeded, and restored the Catholic Religion in triumph, I doubt all good Catholics would have pardoned it, and the most zealous have applauded it. Many of the Plotters regretted its miscarriage, and justified the glorious Design with their last Breath: They who suffered for such horrible Treason, and for framing such a bloody and extensive Massacre, were dignified as Martyrs by their Church, and assumed to themselves that sublime lying Title. It was projected by Robert Catesby, of an ancient Family in Northamptonshire, who, after many Consultations with other fierce 15 which,] [[...]]

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

544

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 9

Papists, particularly with Thomas Percy, a man of great Quality, a near Relation to the Earl of Northumberland, and employed about the Person of the King, proposed it as a much more comprehensive Expedient than that of Percy, who had offered to kill the King. They all approved it, and heard him with Pleasure explain | ‘how feasible it fol. 428v was, and how to be executed, by lodging so many Barrels of Powder in the Room under the House of Lords, and covering them with Faggots and Billets’. Percy hired the Room of the Master of the Robes, as it lay convenient to his House adjoining to it, which he had purposely taken. The murdering Materials were all purchased and packed; the Dark Lanthorn, Tinder Box and Matches, all ready placed, with a resolute Partizan, Guy Fawkes (who had passed for Percy’s Man) posted at the Door, ready to kindle the Match, and booted ready to fly when he had done. When he found himself a Prisoner, all discovered beyond denial, and the dreadful Havock marred, the desperate Villain owned all, and raging to be disappointed, wished at least that he could have blown up himself with those who took him. He repeated his Confession before the King, with his own Compunction for the Disappointment. The blind Enthusiast added, ‘that it was not God, but the Devil that had made the | Dis- fol. 429r covery’, and stubbornly refused to name his Accomplices. Next Day the Sight of the Rack overcame his Resolution and he named them. Several of them had retired to Warwickshire, there to seize the Princess Elizabeth, then at the House of Ld Harrington in that County. Her they intended to proclaim Queen, to amuse the Protestants for a while. Percy had undertaken to kill Prince Charles: Prince Henry attending his Father in the House, was to have been blown up with his Father. They in Warwickshire, only waited for notice of the great Blow being given in Westminster, in order to secure the Princess: They had broken open a Stable of fine Horses and taken as many as they wanted. The High Sherif of the County raised the Posse to take the Robbers, who were likewise thunder struck by the Flight and Arrival of their Companions, with doleful Tidings from London. Their next Effort was to rouse the Papists in the Neighbourhood, to defend them against the ardent Pursuit made by the Country. As few joined them, they took shelter in a Gentle-

14 ⎡he1⎤ 17 up] [[...]] 20 ⎡had⎤ 33 [[...]] ⎡by⎤

The Reign of James I

545

fol. 429v man’s House: There, what powder they had, blew | up by an Acci-

dent; and thus unable to defend themselves, as they had threatened they would, they attempted to fly. Some of them were killed; two of them fighting desperately, particularly Catesby. Percy too behaved bravely, but was taken after many wounds. Sir Everard Digby and some more yielded. Their other Accomplices, and Garnet the Jesuit, were apprehended at London.39 Garnet was evidently in the wicked Secret, and probably animated the Conspirators, who were at first so shocked with a proposal for such wonderful Butchery, and as it were the Extinction of a Nation, that before they would engage in it, they desired to have the opinion of some Divines. It was manifest that some such were consulted, particularly Garnet and Tesmond, as will appear when we come to their Trial. The Earl of Northumberland, of ancient Race, and for weight and quality the first English Subject, a man of great Spirit; very learned; a fol. 430r warm Champion for the King and his | Succession, which he had declared himself ready to support by his Sword, against all Opposers, and had supplied him with his Purse in Scotland, where his Majesty often wanted such Helps; was, with all his Merit, committed to the Tower, without other Imputation of Guilt, than that he had admitted his Cousin Percy into the Band of Gentlemen Pensioners, of which he was Captain, without giving him the Oaths. For this Omission he was deprived of all his Employments, fined thirty thousand Pounds, and imprisoned during the King’s Pleasure, by a Sentence of the Court of Star Chamber; that arbitrary Den, as Osborne calls it,40 where there sat the Keeper, two Bishops and two Judges, with as many wise Lords and great Officers as pleased to come; and where, though most of them were unable to give a Reason for their Censure, they concurred to tear in pieces such as refused to worship the Minions or yield to pretended Prerogative Royal. Lord Mordaunt and Lord Sturton were fined in the same oppressive Court, one ten, the other six thousand Pounds, without any other Allegation of Guilt,

5

10

15

20

25

30

15 Subject,] and 39 Henry Garnet (1555–1606), the Jesuits’ superior in England, was executed for complicity in the plot. Oswald Tesimond, known as Greenway (1563–1636), himself a Jesuit, managed to flee to Italy. 40 Osborne, Historical Memoires on the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James.

546

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

but that they had not | come up to Parliament, and like the Earl of fol. 430v Northumberland, had Land or Money to satiate hungry Courtiers. For whatever came to the King came to these. The Discovery of this tremendous Plot, though the Glory of making it was, by his own Contrivance and the Flattery of his Courtiers, given to the King, came from that great King and great Man, Henry the fourth of France, who, with small Regard for the King of England, judged it politic as well as heroic and christian, to save the English Nation. He acquainted James with the public Danger, and paid for his Generosity with his Life. The same devilish Spirit, which would have shed so much protestant Blood, shed his, for not being a true Papist.41 I doubt the important Secret was ill kept. James, who never could keep any, probably dropt it to some of his Minions. The Jesuites got it; not surely from Henry, who was an able Prince; nor from his Ministers; for he employed none but able Men. The Conscience and Firmness of James in keeping Secrets of | Consequence, will be often seen, but most conspicuously in the fol. 431r Case of Sr Walter Railegh’s Expedition. Let me add here, that no Man can be a great Man, no Man is fit for Trust, if he cannot keep a Secret. Charles the first could keep nothing from his Queen and the Servants about him: A Weakness which hastned his Ruin. Cromwell was impenetrable: He kept all Secrets to himself, but such as his policy and service made it necessary to communicate; and then trusted to such Confidents as never betrayed him. His Great Talent this Way procured him Intelligence from all Hands, because all Men could confide in him; whilst his own Councels were a Mystery to all. Not a Step, not a Whisper in the Court of the exiled King, escaped his Knowledge. But I return to the Discovery of the Plot. The Letter conveyed by an unknown Person to Ld Mounteagle, warning him from attending the Parliament, and denouncing a terrible Blow to be soon given,42 was forged, and conceived in dark Terms, on Purpose to furnish the

3 them⎡se⎤ 41 Henry IV would be assassinated in Paris on 14 May 1610 by a Catholic fanatic, François Ravaillac, supposedly at the instigation of the Jesuits. 42 There has been speculation that William Parker, the fourth Baron Monteagle (1575–1622), wrote the letter himself in order to win credit and favour with the King.

The Reign of James I

547

fol. 431v King with an | Opportunity of displaying his Sagacity, or, in his own

Words, his ‘fortunate Judgment in clearing and solving obscure Riddles and doubtful Mysteries; of which, he says, his Ministers had Experience’. It is like, that he meant his Commentary upon the Book of Revelations. He says, that, for this Reason, some Lords of the Council, unable to fathom the meaning of the Letter, presented it to Him; that he paused over it some time, shewed the Earl of Salisbury how wide his Lordship was in his Guesses about it, then unfolded the true Drift of it himself, and gave Orders to search the Rooms under the Parliament House. He goes on with a wordy Detail of the Discovery. The whole Piece, called a Discourse of the Powder Treason, is a heavy Narrative, full of his own Wisdom, and the Loyal Zeal of his Ministers for the Security of his Person, with an Introduction of sad forced Eloquence.43 His Wisdom and false Fame for such profound Penetration, in discovering what had been discovered to him, were loudly echoed, fol. 432r and many Fortunes were | made, or mended, by the Gunpowder Plot. There was an Emulation amongst his usual Adorers, to surpass each other in their new Adorations: For, they who presented the highest Incence, had the highest Rewards. Such Incence was therefore copiously offered, without Bounds or Shame, in all the Strains of Falshood and Profaneness; and the Holy Ghost was confidently said to have been his Assistant in disclosing the dark Scene. He received many Complements from abroad upon his Deliverance, particularly from the King of Spain, to the great Indignation of the English, who always hated and suspected that Court, and to the great Diversion of the Pope, who knew their long Antipathy and Machinations of the Spanish Court against England. His Holiness did not know that the Spaniards were then gaining an Ascendant over King James, which they improved every Day, and by it led and baffled him, at least in all his great Transactions with themselves, to the End of his Life; as will appear in many shameful, some very mournful Instances, one very tragical.

5

10

15

20

25

30

8 ⎡his2⎤ 11 Discovery⎡urse⎤ 20 Incence] had 28 ⎡of the Spanish Court⎤ 43

See Cobbett’s Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason, II (1809), pp. 195–218.

548

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

| When the Parliament, which had been prorogued from time to fol. 432v time till the 5th November 1605 (the Day fixed by the Conspiracy for their Conflagration) now met on the 9th the King entertained them with a Speech, another curious long Sample of his King Craft and unkingly Eloquence.44 His last, he said, was ‘an Action of Thanks to them and in them to the whole Commonwealth, for their loving Reception of Him in that Place (the Throne) which God and Nature by descent of Blood, had provided for Him. He now comes to offer a far greater Thanksgiving to a far greater Person, namely to God, for such a miraculous Deliverance’. He quotes a Text in Latin, that ‘his Mercy is above all his other Works, and shews that our Generation in the old Adam was not so glorious to God, as our Redemption in the second Adam. Kings were, in the Word of God, called Gods, and being God ’s Lieutenants, were furnished with some Sparks of the Divinity’. He compares God’s Kingdom in the Great World to | his own little fol. 433r Kingdom bounded by the Seas. He shews, why ‘the first World was, by the Deluge, baptized to a general Destruction, and the second shall be punished by Fire, with an Exception to the Righteous, who shall only be purged; as Noah and his Family escaped in the Flood’. He illustrates both these Dooms with the two fearful Doomsdays which ‘had threatened to destroy Himself and his little World’. He means Gowrie’s Conspiracy in Scotland,45 and the late popish Conspiracy. He enters into a Display of each, and is very pompous upon both, especially the second, and observes in it three miraculous Events; first the Cruelty of the Conspiracy, which he eloquently proves in a Multitude of Words, and shews that ‘Men are liable to be destroyed three Ways, first, by one another: 2dly by Beasts of Prey, who yet may sometimes have Compassion, like the Lions to Daniel in their Den: 3dly by Fire and Water, the most cruel of all; but of these, he says fire is the most raging and merciless’. What a strange Jumble of Divinity,

3 Conflagration)] and 44

The speech was delivered on 9 November 1605, four days after the discovery of the plot. See James I, Political Writings, ed. by Sommerville, pp. 147–58. 45 A rather mysterious conspiracy in August 1600, in which John Ruthven, the third earl of Gowrie, and his brother Alexander Ruthven died while supposedly trying to kidnap or kill King James (at the time the king only of Scotland).

The Reign of James I

549

History, Politics, his own sacred Importance, divine Character, Quofol. 433v tations and Arguments | to prove obvious Things!

Under his 2d general Head, he alledges what small Ground the Plotters had given them to provoke them. His 3d upon the Discovery of the Plot takes up much Room. He clears himself ‘of any Proneness to Suspicion, which he holds to be the Sickness of a Tyrant ’; yet declares ‘how he instantly interpreted the dark Phrases of the Letter, and how truly contrary even to the Rules of Grammar, and he was sure beyond what any Divine, or any Lawyer, in any University could have construed the same’. After he has told them, that, ‘had the cruel Design prevailed, he should not have been recorded to Posterity for having died in an AleHouse or a Stew, but in the most honourable Company’: He harangues at large upon God’s Providence in their Deliverance, quotes Latin from David ’s Psalms, with Scipio’s bold Declaration to his Enemies, the Tribunes, presses them to Thanksgiving, and repeats a Text.46 fol. 434r The Rest of his Speech is chiefly | by false Art and tedious Circumlocutions, to soften the Parliament towards the Papists, who had contrived to Massacre them all. He says ‘that many Papists are saved ’, and calls for Detestation against the Puritans, ‘as deserving Vengeance and Fire, for denying Salvation to Papists; for that, many honest Men might be Papists’. He perversely forgets, that Papists not only deny Salvation to all Protestants, but even burn or otherwise destroy them for not being Papists. He cautions the Parliament, this Parliament so dreadfully threatened by Papists, and incensed against them, not to use them sharply; and acquits ‘the popish Princes abroad and their Ministers here, from approving, or even knowing the Conspiracy’. After many such injudicious Strains, all evidently studied, he calls his Speech an abrupt one, and assigns a Cause for its being so. He said, They were to ‘consider, that an Abrupt and undivided Speech doth best become the Relation of so abrupt and disorderly an Acci-

4 ⎡given them⎤ 6 he] [[ ...]] 23 ⎡not only⎤ 46

5

10

15

20

25

30

16 Tribunes,] and 21 dese⎡r⎤ving 23 – 25 ⎤ He ... Papists.⎤

‘The mercy of God is above all his workes’.

550

5

10

15

20

25

30

dent’. He then gives two deceitful Reasons (for he is very Methodical) why he intends to prorogue the Parliament. He again recommends the Union of the two Crowns, declares his own impartiality, and how God had given them both one King in his Person. He had before acquainted | them, ‘that all Knowledge was infused or acquired, that fol. 434v the former ceased with Prophecy; the latter was to be acquired by Experience’. He now acquaints them with themselves, and tells the Parliament, of what Ranks and Branches the Parliament consists, and does it very minutely, as also the purport and Business of their Meeting. Upon this Head too he is very exact, quotes Tacitus,47 and recommends the Circumspection of the Lacedamonians, with the Terror and Penalty attending the proposal of any new Law in that State. James seemed to think, that if the Parliament made Laws about every Thing, He should have Power in Nothing. From the same Craft, he inveighs against ‘Eloquence in Parliament, and calls long Speeches, Toys ’. He thought if he could banish Speeches there, he should of course banish Debate there and put an End to that great Priviledge, which he dreaded so much. He says, ‘Men should be ashamed to make shew of the Quickness of their Wits there, in taunting, scoffing, or detracting from the | Prince or Government in any fol. 435r Point; for which Alehouses are fitter Places’. In this Speech he promises fair; but his Professions, like all such as are known to be insincere, had no more than their proper Credit. It was indeed a strange one, but not strange from Him. Yet this weak, wordy, ill-timed, pithless Harangue, so disgustful to Parliament and People, produced new Flights of Flattery at Court. They extolled his generous Tenderness to all the innocent Catholics after such Provocation from some of the Catholics. For he had taught his Favorites to believe, or They had taught him, that the Bulk of the Catholics were so. He had however given fresh warning to the Protestants, how warmly he continued attached to the Papists, especially after the Bitterness which he had expressed towards the Puritans, and the dreadful Doom he had denounced against them, though sound Protest-

33 to⎡wards⎤ 47

Chapter 9

Tacitus, Annales, 3. 27.

The Reign of James I

551

ants in all christian Principles, and only tender about discipline and Ceremoncy, things nowise akin to Christianity: For such Tenderness and for their Want of Charity to Papists, they deserved to be burned; v fol. 435 whilst the Blasphemy of | Transubstantiation, which turns the Priest into God, and God into a Wafer, is only a School Question, which yet is maintained with Dungeons, Racks and Flames, wherever it prevails; and the Papists are so far from any Charity towards Protestants, that they believe all Protestants to be damned, and openly avow this their belief. Could any Thing be more unsuitable to the Character of a King, more injurious to his Fame, or more threatning to his Person, than such open Partiality? It was Language below a Gentleman, and unworthy of a Man. It was indeed a Complement to the Puritans, as it inferred a Persuasion, that the Puritans were not such blood thirsty Men as his Friends the Papists, from whose vengeful Hands he had just escaped. Was this a Proof that they were better Friends to Monarchy? Yet the Love and Hate of James were chiefly founded upon this false Notion and ridiculous Distinction. Could any Thing more r fol. 436 demonstrate his own Weakness and the Power of his | Minions over him? A Demonstration that will occur more and more! He was so intoxicated with his own selfish absurd Maxims, and with their traitorous Councels, that public Justice and the Cry of the People for it upon the bloody Conspirators, were neglected for near three Months, and would have been longer, if not for ever, but for the meeting of the Parliament on the 21th of January. He knew that as the Spirit of the Parliament was the same with that of the People, their Cry would be the same; and apprehended that they would not only require Justice, but see it inflicted. The Traitors were therefore at last tried and condemned: But of all the Guilty, only eight were executed. Garnet the Jesuite was afterwards condemned. The King declared in Print, that He had confessed, that He was, at least, acquainted with the Treason. Can we doubt that he approved it? By knowing it, without discovering it, he died as a Traitor by the Law. The other Jesuite, Tesmond, was fairly convicted. He made an equivocal Defence, was forced to own a Fact, fol. 436v which he had strongly denied upon his Salvation, | then vindicated 2 Ceremon⎡c⎤y 24 for good and all, ⎡ever,⎤ 29 condemned],: bBut 32 ⎡that⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

552

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

the Innocence of his Perjury by the Doctrines of Equivocation. Another Jesuite too was hanged, one Oldcorn, not charged with being in the Conspiracy, but for defending it as just, though it had failed.48 As there was never a more bloody Treason devised by the most bloody Traitors; there never was a Treason more clearly proved by manifold and all possible Evidence, even by their own Confessions. None of the Papists then, nor long after, questioned the Truth of it. Their Guides have since taught them to lay it upon Cecil as a Trick of State. Doctor Burnet justly calls their Denial of it Impudence,49 as well he might, especially after he had seen so many Letters of Sr Everard Digby, one of the Conspirators, and executed for the Conspiracy, all written by him whilst in Prison, all justifying the terrible Treason, blaming such as censured it; magnifying the glorious Undertaking, and declaring his Willingness, had he a thousand Lives, to sacrifice them all for it. In them he mentions Circumstances, and | says, ‘there fol. 437r were not above three worth saving, to whom they had not given Notice to keep out of the Way’. All these blood thirsty Traitors passed with their Church for Martyrs; and proper Martyrs they were to bear witness of the Spirit of the popish Religion and to adorn the Romish Calendar. The Parliament after such terrible Warning, framed an Oath, to be taken by the Popish Recusants, against the Pope’s deposing Power. The King, who could not but seem to like the Oath, yet shewed a great dislike to many Words in it offensive to the Catholicks; and, objecting to the Assertion in the rough Draught, that the Pope had not Power to excommunicate the King, as an Assertion displeasing to his good Catholic Subjects, he insisted ‘that it was enough to maintain, that, the Pope’s Excommunication could not warrant the King’s Subjects to rebel ’: As this Oath only condemned the Pope’s Power to depose Princes (a problematical Point amongst the Papists) most of them in England took it, and approved it, till the Pope told them in a Brevet, that by it | they forfeited Salvation. Bellarmin wrote against fol. 437v it, and James answered him, as also wrote an Apology for the Oath: A

15 He mentions iIn | ⎡he mentions⎤ 20 ⎡to⎤ 48 49

Edward Oldcorne or Oldcorn (1561–1606), a Catholic martyr beatified in 1929. Burnet, History of His Own Time, I, p. 11.

The Reign of James I

553

mean Undertaking for a Monarch, to squabble with a Monk about Subtleties and school Distinctions. It is a wordy Performance, larded with Scripture, History, the Fathers etc., and bears an odd Title, Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus; for it confutes two Popes as well as the Cardinal.50 But though he affected to defend the Oath, or rather himself against the Pope’s deposing Principles; it was plain that he did not like it, as it boded ill to the Catholicks, and threatened them with the Execution of the Laws. In his Apology he tells all Christian Princes and all the World, ‘that, far from persecuting Catholicks, how much he exceeded the late Queen in Mildness towards them: how much he had alarmed his best protestant Subjects, by his extraordinary Favours to Papists; how many of these he had knighted; his Court fol. 438r and Company had been open to all Ranks and Degrees | of Papists: He had freely remitted their Fines: He had directed the Judges not to execute even criminal and convicted Priests: He had issued a Proclamation to release all that were in Prison and condemned, granting them leave to go abroad. Others, as fast as they were apprehended, had the same Indulgence, and all were used as good Subjects. He adds that it would be endless to enumerate all his Favours to Papists in general and to Papists in particular, and taxes the Pope with Ingratitude, for treating him as a Foe to Catholics’. This was surprising Language to Protestants, not yet recovered from their Consternation upon such an Infernal Enterprize of the Papists to extirpate Them and their Religion; and, after such a dreadful Alarm from the Papists, it was no wonder that the Parliament and protestant Magistrates were upon their Guard against their Devices, and for executing the Laws against Recusants. As the Danger had been general, so was the Resentment, and a general Prosecution begun: A Proceeding that gave the King great Disgust and Uneasiness, and he soon put a Stop to it. Besides his strange Bias to fol. 438v Papists, he was | afraid of incensing their Priests to Assassinate Him:

5

10

15

20

25

30

16 Pri⎡e⎤sts 32 Assassinatione ⎡Him⎤ 50 Two breves of Pope Paul V and a letter from Cardinal Bellarmine to the English Archpriest George Blackwell, reproving him for taking the oath, were the triple knot (nodus); James’ replies were the wedge (cuneus) destroying the knot. See James I, Political Writings, ed. by Sommerville, pp. 85–131.

554

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

And with Him Fear was always too hard for manly Measures and the wisest Policy. He had been likewise told, that some murdering Scheme was forming abroad, and aimed at Him. The Parliament had manifested just but thankless Indignation, as Englishmen, against the implacable Enemies of England: They had shewn thankless Zeal for the Preservation of the King, as well as for their own: They had generously forgot his late Attempt upon their Privileges; a Generosity which must have been highly pleasing to any Prince who had himself Generosity or Discernment, but passed unheeded by King James. Yet under all these Discouragements, striving to cultivate a good Understanding with him, and to convince him of their loyal Affections, they granted him a large Subsidy, indeed a prodigious one in the Time of full Peace, as it was equal to any given to his Predecessors during War and public Distress; but proved not enough to glut the King’s Favorites, and supply His Waste. The Expences of a War | could be calculated and certain: His fol. 439r Prodigality and their Cravings, had no Bounds. Besides, he had a fresh call for Dissipation, by a Visit from the King of Denmark, the Queen’s Brother: To entertain him, no Cost, no Extravagance, was spared. The Court and Kingdom was but one Theatre of Shews and Luxury, Banqueting and Hunting, Balls, Masks, Gayety and Profusion. A Flow of Festivity which lasted near a Month: And, in little more than a Month after, there was another Call to repeat it, by the Arrival of the Prince of Vaudemont, a younger Son of the Duke of Lorrain, attended by a Train of one hundred and fifty Persons, many of them noble; and the whole Entertained for a Fortnight, with Royal Splendor and boundless Expence. In these Scenes of Ostentation and Prodigality, chiefly personal, great part of the public Grant was wasted. In the next Session of Parliament the following Winter, the King pushed the Union. His chief Advocate for it in the House of Commons, was the Solliciter General, Sr Francis Bacon, one very able, very learned and very eloquent.51 But all his Arguments | were unconvin- fol. 439v

7 own],: 26 Entertainment⎡ed⎤ 51

Sir Francis Bacon (1551–1626), a founding father of the scientific method, dedicated his seminal Novum Organum to James.

The Reign of James I

555

cing, or rather ill-timed, and all answered, or evaded, by the Commons, who were neither so well pleased with the King nor with the Scots, to entitle these by a Union to all Favours and Advantages, when they already engrossed so many. The King was startled at the powerful Opposition to his darling Project, which he had affirmed in his first Speech, all good Subjects wished for, and to which none were averse but the ignorant, the restless and disaffected. Whence he was not only proved a false Prophet, who had judged and asserted at Random, but had in effect traduced the Lords and Commons, and called them by untrue and ugly Names. In this Perplexity, he sent for both Houses to White-Hall, and made them a Speech of usual Length and Eloquence, with some Strains unusual even from Him.52 He begins, as usual, far from the Purpose and tells them, ‘that all Men, at the Beginning of a Feast, bring good Wine first, and afterwards worse; as was observed by the Governor of the Feast at Cana fol. 440r in Galilee, where Christ changed | Water into Wine’. He says, ‘he must now follow the Governor’s Rule, and not Christ’s Example, and give the Parliament the sowerest Wine at last. They had already been so cloyed (especially the lower House) with delicate Speeches, and their Ears so seasoned with the sweetness of long precogitate Orations, that this His Speech, at the Close of the Session, must appear to their Taste, as the worst Wine given at the End of the Banquet; since he would deliver them matter without curious Form, Substance without Ceremony, Truth in all Sincerity’. He meant thus to chastize the Members for having presumed to make uncourtly Speeches; and he conceived himself very artful in affecting to speak without Art or Premeditation. He goes on with studied Phrases to shew ‘how improper a Flow of studied Words, was for him the Speaker, for them, the Auditory, for the Greatness of his Place, and the Weight of the Matter. Studied Orations and much Eloquence upon little Matter, were fit for the University, as Trials of Wit’. He shews in many Words, that few

5

10

15

20

25

30

2 ⎡with2⎤ 3 ⎡a⎤ 18 must] now 23 their] to their 32 for] for 52

The speech was delivered on 31 March 1607. See James I, Political Writings, ed. by Sommerville, pp. 159–78.

556

5

10

15

20

25

30

Words are best, upon all great Subjects, consequently in | Parliament; fol. 440v and rambles into other unparliamentary, unkingly Comparisons, between the Garment of a chaste Woman, ‘who is set forth by her natural Beauty only, which is properly her own, and the Deckings and Ensigns of a Harlot, who flies with borrowed Feathers’. After so many Words against the use of many Words, he tells them ‘that his Thoughts being continually busied with the Care of them all, he had not Time for Contemplation: His Place called him to Action. Whereas every one of them (the Members) had little else to do, but to make studied Speeches’. We have already partly seen, we shall further see, how he was chiefly busied, in Hunting, Masking and Feasting; how much he wanted Time for Contemplation, when he was frequently writing Books and Proclamations, discoursing upon Metaphysical Subjects, disputing with the Pope and Bellarmine, and quoting Authors; how greatly he was occupied in his Place; when he confined himself to the Woods and Lawns, and in a Letter to his Privy Council commanded them not to interrupt | his Sports with fol. 441r Business. All this Preface, longer than many Speeches from the Throne, but not yet done, was chiefly meant as a severe Satire upon such as had spoke in their Place, upon public Measures, and defended their Privileges: A Liberty Essential to their Body, but by James much disliked. Kings were Gods, and had part of the Divinity, as he had told them before: But Parliaments were no Gods, and it was Presumption in them to direct one endowed with Divinity; still more so, to contradict him; worst of all, to thwart him. Thus much, says he, ‘by way of Preface’, and talks of proceeding to the Matter, which he says, he delivers to Them ‘confusedly, as in a Sack’. He could ‘with St Paul speak in many Tongues upon it, but he had rather speak three Words to Edification, than talk all Day to no purpose’. We shall immediately see to what solid purpose he utters what follows. ‘In vain doth the Builder build the House, or the Watchman watch the City, unless the Lord give his Blessing, as saith the Psalmist.53 Paul may plant, Apollo may water; but it is God only who

19 In aAll 53

Chapter 9

Psalms 127. 1.

The Reign of James I

557

fol. 441v must | give them Increase’. He quotes St Paul for this Text, and

observes that it is in the New Testament.54 He says that he alledges all this ‘because of their long Proceedings about the Union’. And all this would have been as pertinently applied to any other Subject. He thought at first, that they would have made no more question about it, than they did ‘about acknowledging his Right to the Crown; but that like two Twins, they would have grown up together. But he had found many Disputations and strange Questions and nothing done, Delay added to Delay, searching out as it were the very Bowels of Curiosity; all Proceeding from Mistakes in themselves or from Jealousy of Him. Which last he excuses from their not yet knowing him thoroughly. Neither does he mean that they should resolve in an Hour a thing which required a Month’s Advisement. They knew that Rex est Lex loquens;55 and he had before instructed them, that the Intention of a King ought to be Luce r fol. 442 clarius.56 Deliberandum est diu, quod statuendum est semel.57 | Counsels must proceed lento Pede,58 but the Execution be speedy. No matter, however, though they went on with leaden Feet, so they made some Progress, and did not nodum in scirpo quærere.59 He was for a medium in every thing. There was a middle Way between foolish Rashness and extreme Length’. He throws in some more pithy Sentences, and then ‘descends, as he calls it to Particulars; for as yet he had only dealt in Generals’. He proposes four Heads to be discussed and made out. He begins with a Protestation to God, who knows his Heart, (a common Practise of his, and too common to all Men, who study to outwith others) that he ‘claimed nothing of them, but with Acknowledgment of his Bond to them, and that as they owed Subjection to Him, He owed Protection to Them’. The Question was, or rather I think it was no Question, whether he allowed Them to judge and 3 ⎡that⎤ 25 Heart,] and 54 55 56 57 58 59

1 Corinthians 3. 6. The king is a speaking law. Clearer than light. A final decision should be preceded by mature deliberation. Slowly (literally ‘with slow foot’). To seek a knot in a bullrush; i.e. to find problems where actually there are none.

5

10

15

20

25

30

558

5

10

15

20

25

30

determine the Extent and Bounds of either. He desires a Union of Laws and Persons; one Body of two Kingdoms; such ‘a Union as that of the Scots and Picts in Scotland, and of the Heptarchy in England. A Union made by Love was better than one | made by Conquest. fol. 442v Unus Rex; so unus Grex and una Lex.60 For one Man to be Husband to two Wives, was forbid by Christ Himself, who said, ab initio non fuit sic.61 He studied Clearness, not Eloquence, and wished with the old Philosophers, that his Breast, like a Glass, were transparent. If they saw his Heart, they would like his meaning’. He was terribly mistaken if he thought that they did not see it: They saw it clearer and clearer every Day, the more for his striving to hide it. He had the Conceit and Weakness to think, that he could blind them with Words from seeing his Actions. He therefore was always speaking and acting contrary Ways: They liked not his meaning, because they saw his Heart. ‘By a Union; he intends not a Confusion of all Things, but with a reservation of particular Customs, peculiar to both Nations’. Here he falls into a Declamation upon the uncertainty and variety of the Common Law, after an affected Complement upon it, and says some other Things, which might be true, but most of them | were imper- fol. 443r tinent. He desires not ‘the abolishing of the Laws’, though he was known to hate the Common Law, as not favourable to the despotic Power of Princes. He only desires ‘the sweeping off the Rust from them. A certain Law with some Spots in it, was better than an uncertain Law: An Inconvenience was less harmful than a Mischief ’. But all this (namely, the Alteration of the English Laws, preparatory to the Union) ‘was not to be done without fit Preparation. He that builds a Ship must provide Timber. Christ said, that no Man will build a House, but he will first provide the Materials. No wise King will make war without Money. Union is a Marriage: Would it not be odd, to put a Man and Woman to bed together without mutual Sight, Consent, or Contract? They who were for hurrying the Union

7 ⎡wished⎤ 20 which] Things 60 61

Chapter 9

One king, one society, and one law. Matthew, 19. 8.

The Reign of James I

559

had mel in ore, fel in corde.62 Yet if it came to nothing, what would neighbouring Princes say, but that the Parliament had refused the King’s Desires? The Nation would be taxed, and the King disgraced; and the Scots be told how ill They had been treated and how much traduced’. fol. 443v He says many more idle Things, and | sets himself to answer Objections, particularly for his Partiality to the Scots, and what additional Swarms were apprehended from the Union. He denies such Partiality; and, though the Lords and Commons were the continual and uneasie Witnesses of it, he confidently appeals to them, as if they had never seen it, or the least Sign of it. He talks of his Discretions this way, and promises an equal Ballance. But they, who had seen such his Partiality in so many offensive Instances, against all Discretion and Ballance, and found him so little subject to keep his Promises, would no longer be deceived by Promises. He next contradicts all this his own Plea of Impartiality, by an Apology for his singular Favours to his Countrymen. His Accession was ‘a Ground of universal Joy; his Journey was like a hunting Progress; his first three Years like a Christmas. Had he been oversparing to the Scotch then, they might have thought that Joseph had forgotten his Brethren. But Suites were not now so cheap, nor so many Fees to r fol. 444 the Hamper and Petty Bagg for the | Great Seal’. He shews the Advantages of the Union, under three Heads. One is, the abolishing of all hostile Laws; another is mutual Commerce.63 Some part of the Scots he said, were naturalized already, namely, all who were born since his Accession to the English Crown; so would all be who were to be borne. This he said, was the Opinion of the Judges, and this he had accordingly verified in a Proclamation to that Purpose.64 In this Opinion however the Judges were reckoned more complaisant to the King, than just to the Law and their Duty. This Complement of the Judges, as it pleased Him, he would have to be Law. But, the Parliament were not swayed by the Name or Credit of the Judges, and would neither own their Opinions, nor his Proclamations,

62 63 64

Honey in the mouth, gall in the heart. The third point is the naturalization of the Scots. A Proclamation issued on 20 October 1604.

5

10

15

20

25

30

560

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

to be Law; though he warned them against ‘Disgracing the Judges and his Proclamations; since when the Parliament was up, the Judges had Power to try both the Lands and Lives of the Parliament-men’. After many Words and Distinctions, about the Antenati and the Postnati, with some Cautions and Latin, he advises the | Parliament, fol. 444v that in the Next Debate upon the Union, they be as ready to ‘resolve Doubts as to move them, and to be satisfied when Doubts were cleared’. He is copious upon the Blessings of the Union, and answers more Objections to it, promises great Impartiality to both Nations, or rather greater Favour to the English. He urges ‘the Power given to Princes by the Civil Law civitate donare, to make Aliens Citizens: and where the Law is obscure, there is a sure Interpreter. Rex est Judex; for he is Lex loquens; the speaking Law and the Interpreter of Law; and such a Prerogative he could prove from famous Histories to be personal to the Kings of England and France’: As if these Monarchies were alike, or this proper Language to an English Parliament. As to any Detriment from the Union to particular Corporations in England, he says, ‘it may be a Merchant in Bristol or Yarmouth, may have an hundred Pounds less in his Pack, but no matter, if the Empire be greater’. He endeavours to remove the supposed Difficulties in General on the Part | of Scotland, and ranks them under three Heads. Some he fol. 445r confutes, some he denies, and some he explains. ‘As to particular Difficulties, he says, cujus est condere, ejus est explicare: You cannot interpret their Laws, nor They yours. I that made them with their Assent, can best expound them’. He then explains, he says, ‘from the best Lawyers in Scotland, the meaning of Fundamental Laws. There they had no Common Law (to which he had an utter Distaste) but only Jus Regis, the King’s Law; and he gives the Parliament to know that his Kingly Descent goes backward three hundred Years before Christ; with what ease he governed that Kingdom, how ready they were to obey him in forwarding the Union, and how all honest Men, who desired his Greatness, had concurred with them, from the personal Regard they had for his Person’.

11 ⎡civitate donare,⎤

The Reign of James I

561

He owns ‘there are many Piggots 65 amongst them, seditious Men who perhaps talked lewdly enough’. What could be more below a King, what more unsuitable and dangerous in a Speech to a Parliament, than thus to vent his personal and unprincely Resentment, and fol. 445v to point out by Name, a Member for using the | Liberty of a Member, and for proposing his Sentiments there, as became him? From thence he notes, ‘what was as indiscreet and as invidious, that in the Scotch Parliament they must not speak without the Chancellor’s Leave. Whoever propounded there any uncomely Speech, he was streight silenced. Whereas, here any Member might speak what he listed, and as long as he listed; the longer the more sure of Attention’. He further explains and specifies the Scotch Laws, and how they differ from or agree with the English, as also their manner of calling and holding Parliaments, and assures them, that ‘the Form of Parliament there is nothing inclined to Popularity ’. Another Rebuke to the English Commons! He answers the Objections taken from the fœderal Ties of Scotland with Foreign States, enters into that History, and even into the Constitution of France, into the Engagements of Scotland with Queen Elizabeth, and shews his Reading, his Experience, and his Skill in Politicks. He again illustrates the Benefol. 446r fits of the | Union. ‘England was a Gainer by the Addition of Wales. Was not Scotland greater than Wales? Two Snow-Balls put together make one the greater. Two Houses joined, make one the larger. Two Castle Walls made in one, make one as thick and strong as both’. He acquaints them ‘how the Scotch Armies were raised, even by Proclamation, (left them mind That!) every Nobleman and Gentleman came provided with Tents, Victuals and Arms: So they were forced to come to the War, like Snails, who carry their House about. The King may by his Proclamation, renewed from Time to Time, keep them as long as he lists, to the hundredth Year, if need were: They being ever bound to serve and wait upon him’.

5

10

15

20

25

30

2 loudly ⎡lewdly⎤ 3 unsu⎡i⎤table 7 invidu⎡i⎤ous 16 ⎡taken⎤ 17 ⎡with Foreign States,⎤ 65

Sir Christopher Pigott’s speech in the Commons against the Scots on 13 February 1607 is alluded to here (see James I, Political Writings, p. 295).

562

5

10

15

20

25

30

He draws towards a Conclusion. ‘He was glad of this Occasion, that he might liberare Animam suam.66 He prays them to remember the Truth and Sincerity of his meaning. He wisheth the Union for their Good. He will not say any thing which he will not promise, nor promise any Thing which he will not swear. What he swears he will sign: What he signs he shall by | God’s Grace ever perform’. A Testi- fol. 446v mony from himself, of his own Veracity, which in that Audience had few Vouchers! This Speech, like most of his, was longer than many twelve penny Books. They were all rather Dissertations to charm the Parliament with his Wisdom, Eloquence and Learning, and to awe them with the Divine Power and Right centered in his Person. He was mistaken himself, and deluded by the Sycophants about him. What they pretended to admire and revere, and what he thought deserved to be admired and revered, gave Offence to his best Subjects, and was ridiculed by almost all, and so far from conciliating the affections of the Parliament, that the Parliament, who in his Speeches perceived his Conceit and Weakness, as well as his unpopular Views, seeing cause neither to love him, nor to fear him, laughed at his Craft, slighted his Importance, and supported their own Authority against his chimerical Pretensions. The Advantages which he enjoyed from the able Measures of Queen | Elizabeth, helped to turn his Head. By fol. 447r long Struggles, many Wars, manly Efforts, and a Course of sound Policy, she had left England in full Peace and Security, powerful at home, reverenced or dreaded abroad. This State of Credit and Tranquillity James attributed to his momentous Accession, and to the Wisdom of his Administration. What happened from the Course of things, He ascribed to his own Abilities: An amazing Symptom of self Sufficiency, which, in weak Minds, is always Folly. He had Imagination and Words, many Ideas, and redundant though disagreeable Utterance, but all ill directed and hurtful to himself. Whoever wants manly Judgment, will ill support kingly Dignity. His Speeches were the strangest Things in the World, except his Actions, which were so singular as to be almost incredible.

30 ⎡though disagreeable⎤ 66

Chapter 9

To release his mind.

The Reign of James I

563

He thought that he had done Wonders in his last Speech; and indeed he had: For the Parliament were by it more confirmed in their Aversion to the Union, which they now rejected, and only agreed to what they had no Objection, the Repeal of some hostile fol. 447v Laws against the Scotch Borderers. He was | highly affronted, by the Stubborness and Opposition of the Parliament, and was indiscreet enough to declare his Aversion to all Parliaments. The Parliament liked him as little as He did Them. The People conceived the same Dislike; and his endless Proclamations and Prodigality, gave Offence to all men. He strengthened the prevailing ill Humour by Proroguing the Parliament, where he was likely to have heard many Mouthes open upon what he thought tender Points of State, ‘his Waste, and Mismanagement, and his Craft to pass his Edicts upon a discerning free Nation, for Acts of Parliament’. During the Recess, his great Profusion continuing, and suitable Wants succeeding, no Parliament sitting, nor Hopes of Money from them, if they did sit; He had recourse to his Ministers, and They to their Shifts; lawful or nor lawful, was not the Question, but Trial and Probability. Law might be found afterwards to warrant what they had no Law to warrant at first, and the worst Precedents, even fol. 448r against Law, | were to be urged as Law. The Earl of Salisbury, was, upon the Death of the Earl of Dorset, made Lord Treasurer; and able Man, fit for any Administration, to strengthen a good one, or to support a bad; useful and esteemed in Queen Elizabeth’s Reign, still useful, but not loved in this; once hated by the King, now the more in Favour, because he had laboured the more to gain it, as he still did to keep it. Besides, he and the other Favorites were the more zealous to procure Supplies to the King, as in doing it they were no Losers themselves. What they got for him they got from him; and he would grant any Sum, provided they kept him from seeing it. For This liberal Prince had a tenacious Eye; as this very Treasurer once found upon Trial. The King had granted a Warrant upon him for twenty thousand Pounds to Carr, (a Name that will often occur).67 The

5

10

15

20

25

30

3 ⎡now⎤ 15 and] his | su⎡i⎤table 16 sitting,] and 67

Robert Carr, later Viscount Rochester, was King James’ favourite until 1615, when he was replaced by George Villiers.

564

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

Treasurer contrived that his Majesty should see the mighty Sum all counted out in distinct Heaps. The King was astonished, swore that a Quarter of it was enough, and reduced the Grant of twenty thousand, to five: But he had not | Steadiness nor Courage to persevere. fol. 448v Carr had the whole. For a present Shift, Monopolies were introduced, with many other unlawful, lucrative and pernicious Arts. A Patent was granted to a Merchant for the Monopoly of the sale of Cloth. The same Merchant purchased another Patent, for the sole dressing and dying of all Cloth; an Art hitherto unknown at least imperfect in England, and confined to Holland, whither all the English Cloths were carried white from the Loom, there dressed and coloured, and then returned to England. A Proclamation (the great Engine of present Policy) was straight issued prohibiting the exportation of white Cloths. The Dutch of course prohibited the importation of all English coloured Cloths. Thus few Cloths were made, because few were well dressed at home, and the sale abroad prohibited. The King thus provoked with the Dutch, publishes a Proclamation forbidding them to fish on the Coasts of Great Britain.68 This produced a Treaty and an annual | Sum from them for leave to fish. The King, no Bigot to En- fol. 449r gagements, would have violated the Treaty, probably to get more Money. But some Men of War, sent by the Dutch, to protect their Fishery, proved an effectual Answer to his Proclamations, and perswaded the pacific King of their Right, and of his Wisdom, at least of his own Safety, in letting them enjoy it, in putting up Affronts. The King likewise engrossed to himself the Sale of Allom, a Commodity of common Use, hitherto dear and imported, now brought to perfection at home. Monopolies of other Kinds swarmed, Aids, Privy-Seals, Concealments, Forfeitures upon penal Statutes; Old Oppressions recalled, new ones invented, with Impositions of every

8 ⎡the2⎤ 20 fish] [[...]] 25 ⎡own⎤ 68

The publication of Hugo Grotius’s famous pamphlet, Mare Liberum, in March 1609, was probably the final motive that sealed James’ decision to issue his Fisheries’ Proclamation. The purpose of Grotius was to claim freedom of trade for every nation in the Indian Ocean, but his arguments appeared to King James and his advisers to challenge the dominium maris that English kings had always claimed in the ‘narrow seas’.

The Reign of James I

565

Kind; Trades engrossed, Tradesmen starving; the Clothiers bereft of employment, and the poor Weavers of Bread. The Clergy went hand in hand with the Government in distressing and afflicting the Nation, sanctifying all public Exorbitancies, fol. 449v and adding to them; Bancroft at the Head of them worrying | the Puritans, without Measure or Bowels. These poor men, the most harmless in the nation, guilty only of Sobriety and Conscience, daily hampered, fined, imprisoned and persecuted, having no rest or view of Relief at home, agreed to fly their Country and seek better usage from the wild Beasts and savage Indians in America, and to retire to Virginia, a Province called so from the late great Maiden Queen, and conquered by Sr Walter Ralegh, the greatest Subject of his Time, at this Time in the Tower. But the Archbishop envying the unhappy Christians this Refuge from his insatiable antichristian Rage, procured a Proclamation to restrain them from escaping his Iron-hands. For, all was right that the Court did, especially, when it helped the Clergy to plague the Puritans. He made too another Effort to annul the Power of Parliament, by tempting the King to assume that Power, and to rescue the Misdemeanors of the Clergy from the Correction of the Judges and the Law. But the Judges were still stiff in this mofol. 450r mentous Point, | and again deterred the King from yielding to the Archbishop. Whatever Figure King James made at home, he made no better abroad, as will be largely seen. His wonderful Tenderness for Sovereignty, and his fantastic Notions of Sovereigns, entered into all his Measures and spoiled them, even in the few Cases where his Timidity did not interfere. Queen Elizabeth had, upon the Principles of sound Policy, supported the Dutch against the Tyranny of Spain, and gained immortal Honour by effectually humbling that aspiring Monarchy; which was fostering destructive Schemes against all Europe, particularly against England. It is incredible what Millions of Money and Myriads of Men, were wasted by that perfidious Oppressor, Philip the second, to support his Perjury, by crushing his Subjects in the Netherlands, for the high Crime of consulting self preservation, of resisting deadly cruelty, and securing their Lives and Liberties, which he had pledged his Oath to maintain. The plea for his Perjury 18 it ⎡that Power,⎤ 19 ⎡to⎤

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chapter 9

566

5

10

15

20

25

30

was as weak as infamous, namely the Dispensation of the Pope to break | it as given to Heretics: A Plea that might have served his best fol. 450v Catholic Subjects for deposing Him, whenever his Holiness pleased to warrant them, by calling Him Heretic. For thus he had roused and defended a Rebellion in France, against both Henry the third and Henry the fourth, the former a bigotted Papist, the latter a Convert from Calvinism. Queen Elizabeth never deserted the Dutch, till she had made them an Overmatch for their Oppressor, nay his Terror and Rivals by Sea and Land. Spain thus exhausted, languished for Peace, but was loth to own her revolted Subjects for a Free State. Henry the fourth, who, governed by true Policy and a manly Spirit, had early espoused the Dutch, now employed an able Embassador, and all his good Offices in their Behalf, and pushed his Negociations with Vigour, nor ceased till he carried his Point, and the Seven Provinces were acknowledged by Spain as an Independant Sovereign State.69 James, who was equally concerned in honour and Interest, acted a very unequal | Part, or rather none at all, at least worthy of a King fol. 451r or a Man. He was so possessed with his Chimeras of irresistible Sovereignty, and of the blind Servitude due from Subjects, that he used to treat the Dutch as Rebels. Though they owed the English Crown near a Million Sterling, seasonably lent them in their Distress by the late Queen, and he was obliged to treat with them upon that Head, yet he declared that he would own no Alliance with them, till they had obtained Peace with Spain. He at last interfered as the Shadow of a Mediator; his Embassadors behaved faintly, and he and they, or rather they by his Means, made an impotent, inglorious Figure. Henry the fourth who knew him well, mocked his Insincerity, and the Inconsistency of his Mediation for a Peace, between Philip and the Dutch, ‘when he was known to have been always condemning the Dutch for rebelling against their King’. He treats James with great Scorn in one of his letters to the President Jeannin, upon this very

8 ⎡nay⎤ 19 ⎡his⎤ | 32 Jea⎡n⎤nin 69

irresista⎡i⎤ble

19 – 20 Sovereignty,] and of irresistable Sovereignty,

The Republic of the United Provinces was officially recognized in the Peace of Westphalia (1648). It consisted of the seven northern Netherlands provinces that had formed the Union of Utrecht in 1579 and declared independence from Philip II of Spain in 1581.

The Reign of James I

567

Occasion. ‘I know, says he, what that ----- (calling him by a very mean fol. 451v contemptuous Name), I know what he is capable of; but, | that

affects not my Rest’.70 His Character and Credit with the new Commonwealth were as low as with the French King; and they never made any Scruple to insult and outwit him. He was indeed so far from rejoicing at their Establishment, that he beheld it with Concern; as a Breach upon Monarchy, of allarming Tendency, and a boding example to all Monarcks. He was so bewitched with his own Dreams of the inviolable Divinity of all Kings, that he ventured to license Books asserting the most slavish Doctrines in this free Country, where he had already given great offence by his strange Principles and Positions, though he had hitherto affected to disguise them with fair Words and Glosses: But now no Veil was kept on, no softening observed. In one of these Treatises, written by Doctor Cowell, a Civilian, Vicar General to Bancroft and his Creature, it was methodically attempted to be proved, ‘first, that the King (King James) was not fol. 452r bound by the Laws, nor by his Coronation | Oath: Secondly, that the King was not obliged to call a Parliament to make Laws, but might make them by his absolute Power: Thirdly that it was an especial Condescension in the King to admit the Consent of his Subjects in raising Subsidies upon his Subjects’. Another Book, Royally licensed, written by Dr Blackwood a Clergyman, maintained the same impious Flattery in grosser Terms, that ‘the whole English Nation were hereditary Slaves ever since the Norman Conquest ’. I wonder that the base Sycophant did not carry his complement higher, and entitle the King’s Accession, a Scotch Conquest. The Author could not be restrained by its not being true; for the Doctor had defied all Truth. But to have made King James a Conqueror, would have made the Reader laugh too loud.71 These were alarming Extravagances in the Ears of Englishmen, the more for their being serious; considering too from whence they

5

10

15

20

25

30

14 Va⎡e⎤il 18 sSecondly 20 tThirdly 22 rRoyally 70 Pierre Jeannin (1540–1622), the president of the parliament of Burgundy. In 1608, he negotiated a defensive alliance between France and the United Netherlands. 71 John Cowell, The Interpreter (1607); Adam Blackwood, Aduersus Georgii Buchanani dialogum [...] pro regibus apologia (1581).

568

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

came, and from whom, and for what wicked Ends. What Opinion could they entertain of their King, what Notions of their Teachers? Teachers who justified Perjury in their King, and prompted | him to fol. 452v be perjured; a King who encouraged such Prompters, and all their godless Tenets, held Tyranny to be from God, and Tyrants to be the Lords-Anointed? Was this the Voice of a common Father, or those the Instructions of Christian Pastors? Was the Nation to maintain Monarchs to enslave the Nation, and a Hierarchy nationally maintained to sanctify their national Bondage; to reverence Princes for oppressing them, and Priests for cheating them? After such a combined and impious Attack in King and Clergy, upon Truth and Liberty, could it look strange to see both treated with just Indignation and Scorn? It was striking at all Morality: For, Tyranny is the highest Immorality, and introduces all others: It was making God, who is the Father of Men, the Author of all Wickedness amongst Men, and of the worst Evils that befall them; and it was deriving all such impious Falshood from the Holy God of Truth. Nor could the Father of Evil and of Lies have invented greater of either sort. Let any Man try his Wits, if it be in the Power of Imagination to devise viler Positions | coming from the bottomless Pit, or more devilisk Forger- fol. 453r ies propagated by Satan! They were still more heinous and shocking, as they came from the Vice-Gerent of God, and the Messengers of Truth. After the King had thus attacked, or rather proscribed Parliaments, as Invaders of his Prerogative, and abolished public Liberty, of which They were the Guardians; it was strange that he should venture to meet them any more. Yet he did next Year 1609. As public Grievances the while, instead of being removed, were multiplied, Popery still countenanced, Papists caressed every where, many of them in Places, several preferred to the highest Trusts, the worst men flourishing; the best men persecuted as Puritans; lawless Fines, Oppressions and Monopolies; Proclamations without End, subverting the Liberty of the Subjects, intruding into the Province of Parliament, and aping the Dignity and Power of Laws; the Books just

8 Monarcks⎡hs⎤ | them ⎡Nation⎤ 8 – 9 ⎡nationally maintained⎤ ⎡could⎤ 13 For,] namely 27 (1609 ) 28 ⎡being [[...]]⎤

9 ⎡national⎤

12 can

The Reign of James I

569

mentioned, the most threatening Grievances of all; it seemed a bold Risk to let the two Houses meet.72 fol. 453v The Parliament were justly affected | with all public Grievances, especially, in such Number, but fell most eagerly upon the two treasonable Libels, which justified all Grievances, by warranting the Will of the King to be the only Law, without inquiring, who guided the King’s Will, a Maggot, or a Minion, a Scotchman or a Spaniard, a Chaplain or a Sportsman. If the King were struck with Lunacy, was the Will of a Lunatic to be Law? If the Prince were born a Fool, would his Will be wise and fit for Law? Or does any Part of the Divinity dwell with Folly? If the Parliament were Judges of his natural Capacity, why not of what as much concerned them, his political and moral Capacity? These traiterous Libels were warmly exposed, and the Authors would have been severely used, had not the King considered them as his Champions, and saved them by a weak Stratagem, and called their Books in by a Proclamation. A poor Reparation to the Public fol. 454r for such a pestilent Assault upon the Constitution! | By saving the Libellers, he shewed that he approved the Libels. He had the Art to sour the Parliament and incense the Nation, just when he was going to apply to the Parliament for a Supply from the Nation. To gain it, he applied to them by the Earl of Salisbury, a much abler Orator than himself, a Man of Art and Business, who used no more Words than were necessary, and offended by no indiscreet Sallies. He told them, ‘that they were met, first to supply the King’s Wants, next to redress popular Grievances. He was a gracious King to his People; and as a singular Mark of his Favour to his parliament, had determined to create his eldest Son Henry, Prince of Wales during this Session, though at Liberty to do it at any other Time’. It is to be observed, that the King had already got from this very Parliament,

5

10

15

20

25

30

7 Mag⎡g⎤ot 19 them ⎡Libels Libellers⎤ 23 shed ⎡used⎤ 72 In 1610 the Commons began proceedings against Cowell’s book, but on 8 March Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, intervened on the king’s behalf to bring discussion on the matter to an end, announcing that James had decided to suppress The Interpreter. James alluded to the affair in his speech of 21 March 2010 (1609 old style). Four days later the book was suppressed by proclamation.

570

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

the Year before, above twenty thousand Pounds for the Expence of this Creation. The Treasurer goes on. ‘The King’s Occasions for Expences had been many; the late Queen’s Debts and Funeral: | An Army for some fol. 454v Time kept in Ireland: His own Journey from Edinburgh, then that of the Queen and Royal Offspring; neither of them to be performed without a suitable Train, nor therefore without a Royal Expence: The King of Denmark’s Reception and Entertainment, for the public Credit: Many Foreign Embassadors of Congratulation, entertained at his Majesty’s Charge, with that of his own Embassies in Return. The King’s Bounty to his Servants, could not be blamed. They would else have been wretched in a wealthy Country. He had been born amongst the Scots, and he could not let them upbraid him, for having changed his Virtue with his Fortune, as they might, if he had not let them taste of the Blessing of the Change’. For all these Reasons, ‘His Majesty desired the Commons to relieve his Wants: A Mark of Esteem, which they could not refuse to such a King, not only the wisest of King, but the very Image of an Angel, that had brought good Tidings to the English, and secured | them in the Enjoyment of perfect Happiness; a King, who by his vast fol. 455r Knowledge and noble Endowments deserved the Title of Defender of the Faith; a King who had secured England from all Invasions, and sought only that every Man might live happy under his own Olive.73 None could wonder at the King’s Desire of a Supply, but such as sought to serve themselves, or believed ignorant Stories; one was that the King intended his Book of Proclamations for a Book of Laws; a thing which never entered into his Thoughts. Far from governing by Will and Pleasure, he was ready to listen to any Motion from the two Houses, provided they kept a just proportion and observed what was due to a great and gracious King ’. The fairest Words will not be believed when foul Facts contradict them. The Earl’s Speech had little weight. Besides Misrepresenting the King’s Demands and Disbursments, he had omitted the greatest

7 Train,] and 10 ⎡own⎤ 20 the ⎡his⎤ 32 Besides] [[...]] 73

Rapin-Thoyras (The History of England, for the year 1610) says ‘under his own Vine and FigTree’, a biblical quote (1 Kings 4. 25) used to denote peace and prosperity.

The Reign of James I

571

of all, his profuse Bounty to Favorites, especially to his Countrymen. The Parliament knew it well: The Commons inveighed loudly fol. 455v against | it, and some mentioned the Scots. They said the Wealth of England was too little to satiate them: They wallowed in the Riches of England, which were swallowed as in a Gulph, at Edinburgh, never to return. They added, the King daily encroached upon the Liberties of the Nation, in order to overthrow them; his Design to abolish the Common Law as too favourable Liberty, and to introduce the Civil Law, more formed for the Support of arbitrary Power. They mentioned his Conversation at his Table to this Purpose, with the Books lately published by his approbation, against the Laws and Liberties of England. They dwelt still more largely upon the lawless Proceedings and Oppression in the High Commission Court, where not only the real Puritans, but all sober Men, and true Patriots, all who would not sacrifice Truth to Flattery, Liberty to meer Will, tender Consciences to the Pride of Priests, were worried, stripped and imprisoned, under the false Imputation of Puritanism.74 For James, who took all Puritans to be Enemies to Monarchy, took all r fol. 456 who were against absolute Monarchy, | to be Puritans. The Commissioners, all his own Creatures and Flatters, humoured all his Caprices, strengthened his Aversions, and found all Men criminal, who did not acknowledge the King to be a God, and the Clergy more than Men; when both King and Clergy were behaving as if there were no God; He trampling upon the Constitution, They upon the Gospel. All moral Duties were despised; all social and divine Duties were confined to blind Obedience and blind Credulity. Plain Piety was Puritanism; Zeal for the Law, was Treason against the King, and both were exposed to the Frowns and Terrors of the High Commission and Star Chamber, two lawless Courts, which made the Crown

5

10

15

20

25

5 ⎡as⎤ 23 Men;] when both King and Clergy more than Men; 74

The Court of High Commission was an ecclesiastical court established by the crown in the sixteenth century as a means of enforcing the laws of the Reformation settlement. It became a hotly disputed instrument of repression, used against those who refused to recognize the Church of England’s authority. It generally proceeded by administering the oath ex officio: those who submitted had to answer all the questions put to them, and were therefore obliged to choose between committing perjury or supplying the grounds for their own conviction; those who refused to take the oath were handed over to the much-feared Court of Star Chamber.

572

5

10

15

20

25

30

75

Chapter 9

and the Cassock Masters of the Persons and Properties of all Men; and thus usurping the Power of Parliaments, rendered Parliaments useless; with this melancholy Difference to the Nation, that Parliaments treated them as Subjects and Freemen; these two Courts as Slaves and Aliens. The Parliament, notwithstanding | these terrible Innovations and fol. 456v Oppressions, and the barefaced Invasion of their Rights, behaved with surprising Temper, and, acquiescing for the present, granted a Subsidy, more than they needed, yet not so much as was expected, and perhaps wanted; for no Supplies or Revenue could cure the King’s Wants. They were therefore prorogued from July till October 1610. During the Session Prince Henry was created Prince of Wales;75 a Prince of prime Hopes, the Credit and Disgrace of his Father; adorned with every noble and virtuous Quality, eminent Candor and Christian Charity; just, brave and sober; his Family decent and discreetly ordered; free from all Debauchery, Oaths, Prodigality, loose Conversation, and every scandalous Habit prevailing in the King’s Court; a Friend to all learned and to all brave Men; fond of Sr Walter Ralegh, and piqued at his Father’s usage of so extraordinary a Genius, Hero and Statesman. This hopeful Youth, though but sixteen, thus furnished with a Mind capable of | great Counsels, and fol. 457r with a spirit to execute such, was the Miracle of the Time, adored at home, admired abroad; the darling of the People, and Eye-sore to the King, the dread and aversion of the Courtiers. Henry the fourth of France, who was struck and delighted with his uncommon Character, gave an uncommon Proof how highly he esteemed him, and what great Things he expected from him. That great King having formed some grand Design, had made suitable Preparations to set it on foot. What it was, is not certainly known; probably the reduction of the formidable House of Austria. It alarmed all Christendom, the more for being unknown; and all Christian Princes were upon their Guard; except King James, who not daring to suppose that it might affect him, was peacefully employed in discussing School Questions,

Henry was made Prince of Wales on 4 June 1610.

The Reign of James I

573

explaining Texts of Scripture, squabling with Divines, railing at Parliaments and the Common Law, or over his Bottle, or his Standish, or pursuing his Sports in the Field. The King of France was believed to have imparted the mighty Secret but to two Persons in the World, fol. 457v his able | Favorite de Roney, Duke de Sully, and to our Prince Henry; a wonderful Complement and Praise to such a Youth, to believe him even fit to keep it, much more to offer him, as it was said, a Share in the Undertaking. In the Beginning of this Session of Parliament, the King had tried, with his usual Cunning, to lull them with a Speech; which, if it had any such Effect, must have had it only from its excessive Length. What may seem incredible, it was many Pages longer than his last, or any of his former.76 It was plain that he had a special good Opinion of it, and of himself. For, when the Members, now long used to his feeble Arts and want of Candour, would believe him in nothing, he fancied that he could mislead them in every Thing. Besides that, all his Speeches were such wonderful Compositions, that if any Body but the King had made them, he would have been thought to have ridiculed the King. fol. 458r It was during Easter | and he tells them, that as two of these Holydays had been spent, one in Eucharistic Thanks at Church, the other in the Address of thanks to himself, ‘therefore to make up the number of three (which was the number of the Trinity and perfection) he thought good to spend that third Day in the Exercise of speaking to the two Houses’. Even this quaint Beginning is not more quaint than what immediately follows. ‘As They had made him a Present of their Thanks and loving Duties to Him, so he, to recompence them, makes them a Present of a christal Mirror, a great and rare Present; not a Mirror for their Faces and Shadows, but a Mirror where they might see the Heart of their King’. He again quotes the Philosopher’s Wish, that his Breast were transparent. A Thing which his Majesty owns to be impossible, but maintains it ‘a true Axiom in Divinity, that Cor Regis

1 ⎡of Scripture,⎤ 20 on the ⎡during⎤ | Easter] Holy Days 23 ⎡of1⎤ 28 ⎡to Him⎤ 29 christial 76

5

10

15

20

25

30

20 – 21 them⎡se⎤ ⎡Holydays⎤

See James I, Political Writings, ed. by Sommerville, pp. 179–203.

574

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9

is in manu Domini.77 He will now put Cor Regis in Oculis Populi ’.78 What he shall say now, some of them have heard him say before: ‘But Reminiscentia 79 nourisheth Memory’. He proceeds, in Method, upon three | Heads; but I shall not fol. 458v follow him in his voluminous Periods and Perplexity. He says he has been charged with a Design ‘to introduce arbitrary Power, and to change the Laws, and Cowel ’s Book had been urged as a Proof of such a Design. But there never was any reason to move Men to think that he could like of such Grounds’. Observe how faintly this Charge is shifted, not denied, and what obscure expression is used! As to the Offence given by Cowell ’s Book, he says he had delivered his Censure of it to them by the Ld Treasurer. Observe that the Treasurer had only said in his late Speech, ‘that it was never in the King’s Thoughts to make his Proclamations equal to Laws’. He adds nothing himself further about it, but refers to his Edict, as he calls it, for the Discovery of his Sentiments, and even in his Edict he does not condemn Cowel ’s dangerous Positions. What comes next is as little to the Purpose, though he affects to reason: ‘For (a very useless Word here:) there were two qualities which made a King | subject to Flattery, fol. 459r Credulity and Ignorance; neither of them he hoped imputable to Him. Had Alexander the Great, with all his Learning, been wise and considered the State of his natural Body, he would not have thought himself a God ’. Though after a Sentence or two, he lays in as confident a Claim to Godhead, as ever was made by Alexander, with higher Privileges than ever Alexander claimed. ‘As it was every Christian’s Duty reddere rationem Fidei ’:80 so he thought it ‘necessary in a wise King (necessary in point of honour, not of Duty) though not to give an account of his Actions to his People, yet clearly to deliver his Heart into Them. Monarchy was the supremest Thing upon Earth; Kings were not only God’s Lieutenants, and set upon God ’s Throne, but by God himself were called Gods. The Dignity of Monarchy was declared three Ways, in Scripture, in Philosophy, and in Policy. Kings

7 ⎡Book⎤ 12 Treasurer],. who | ⎡Observe that the Treasurer⎤ 13 ⎡in his late Speech,⎤ 77 78 79 80

The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord (Proverbs 21. 1). The king’s heart is in the eyes of the people. Recollection. To give an account of faith.

The Reign of James I

575

were justly called Gods; for they exercised as it were divine Power upon Earth. The Attributes of God agreed to the Attributes of a King, Power to make and unmake, to raise and depress; to give Life v fol. 459 and Death, | and Judgment, yet be judged by none; to cry up or cry down their Subjects as they did the Coin; to direct Soul and Body, to 5 demand the Service of the latter, and the Affections of the former’. He utters many more vain extravagances, claims a Privilege of Life and Death over his Subjects, runs more Parallels between himself and the Divinity, and says not a word about his being more frail and fallible. ‘Laws were made by the King only: If the People Peti- 10 tioned for Laws, they had first the King’s Leave to petition’. He proceeds to a world of deceitful Expressions, such as seem to imply the King to be under Restrictions, but in Reality set him above any. He says, for example, ‘that a King degenerates into a Tyrant, when he ceases to rule according to his Laws’, that is, Laws of his own 15 making. And then there can be no Tyrant; for every Tyrant has a Will, which is his Law, and the People must take it for theirs. It is the ‘King’s Conscience’ must check him, when he does

Bibliography

Manuscripts and Archival Resources Cambridge, Library of Clare College, MS G.3.27 Edinburgh, National Records of Scotland, Old Parish Registers, Pre-1855 Births and Baptisms [accessed 16 August 2012] Lawrence, University of Kansas, Spencer Research Library, Trenchard-Simpson Corres­ pondence, MS G23 London, British Library, MS Additional 8888 —— , MS Additional 16281 (‘The Patent of the Company’s Foundation’) —— , MS Additional 21153 —— , MS Additional 20780 (Thomas Gordon, History of England) —— , MS Additional 32703 —— , MS Additional 36772 New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Osborn Collection, Eighteenth-Century Manuscripts, MS C.502 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson J, fol.2

Primary Sources Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland, 1560–1618, ed. by Thomas Thomson (Edinburgh: Hansard, 1839–45) Argens, Jean-Baptiste de Boyer d’, Lettres chinoises (Le Haye: Paupie, 1739–42) Atterbury, Francis, The Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation, Stated and Vindicated: In Answer to a Late Book of Dr. Wake’s, Entituled, The Authority of Chris­ tian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods Asserted, &c. and to Several Other Pieces, 2nd edn (London: Bennet, 1701)

578

Bibliography

Bayle, Pierre, Commentaire philosophique sur ces paroles de Jésus-Christ, “Contrains-les d’entrer”: contenant la réfutation de l’apologie que S. Augustin a faite des convertisseurs à contrainte, 2 vols (Canterbury: Litwel, 1686; Engl trans. London: Darby, 1708)) —— , The Dictionary Historical and Critical of Mr Peter Bayle, 2nd edn, 5 vols (London: Knapton and others, 1734–38) —— , ‘Mahomet’, in Dictionnaire historique et critique, 5th edn, 4 vols (Amsterdam: Brunel and others, 1740), iii, 256–72 —— , Oeuvres diverses de Mr Pierre Bayle, 4 vols (Den Haag: Husson, 1727–31) Blackwood, Adam, Aduersus Georgii Buchanani dialogum, de iure regni apud Scotos, pro regibus apologia (Poitiers: Page, 1581) Bob-Lynn against Franck-Lynn (London: Reynolds, 1732) Bolingbroke, Henry St John, Viscount, Remarks on the History of England: A New Edition (London: Cadell, [1780(?)]) Bower, Archibald, Historia litteraria; or, An Exact and Early Account of the Most Valuable Books Published in the Several Parts of Europe, 4 vols (London: Prevost, 1731–34) Brady, Robert, A Complete History of England, from the First Entrance of the Romans under the Conduct of Julius Caesar, unto the End of the Reign of King Henry III (London: New­comb for Lowndes, 1685) Buchanan, George, De iure regni apud Scotos Dialogus, ed. and trans. by Roger A. Mason and Martin S. Smith as A Dialogue on the Law of Kingship among the Scots (London: Ashgate, 2004) Burke, Edmund, The Correspondence of Edmund Burke, ed. by P. J. Marshall and John A. Woods, 10 vols (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968) Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop Burnet’s History of his Own Time, 3 vols (London: [n. pub.], 1725) —— , History of the Persecution of the Valleys of Piedmont, Containing an Account of What Hath Passed in the Dissipation of the Churches and the Inhabitants of the Valleys, Which Happened in the Year 1686 (London: Newborough, 1688) Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires Preserved in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum, 11 vols (London: British Museum, 1978) Cérémonies et coutumes religieuses de tous les peuples du monde, représentées par des figures dessinées de la main de Bernard Picart; avec une explication historique, & quelques dissertations curieuses, ed. by Jean Frédéric Bernard, 7 vols and 4 supplements (Amsterdam: Bernard, 1723–37, 1733–43; English trans.: The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Several Nations of the Known World, trans. by John Lockman, 3 vols (incomplete) (London: Prevost, 1731) and The Ceremonies and Religious Customs of the Various Nations of the Known World, trans. by [Daniel Bellamy the elder], 7 vols (London: Du Bosc, 1733–39)) Cicero, Cato Maior de senectute, in De senectute, De amicitia, De divinatione, trans. by William Armistead Falconer, Loeb Classical Library, 154 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979) Clifford, Martin, A Treatise of Humane Reason (London: Brome, 1674) Cobbett’s Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanours from the Earliest Period to the Present Time, ed. by William Cobbett, 33 vols (London: Bagshaw, 1809–1928)

Bibliography

579

A Collection of Voyages and Travels, Some Now First Printed from Original Manuscripts, Others Translated out of Foreign Languages, and Now First Publish’d in English [...], 4 vols (London: Churchill, 1704) Collins, Anthony, The Correspondence of Anthony Collins (1676–1729), Freethinker, ed. by James Dybikowski, Libre penseée et littérature clandestine, 47 (Paris: Champion, 2011) —— , A Discourse of Free-Thinking, Occasion’d by the Rise and Growth of a Sect Call’d FreeThinkers (London: [n. pub.], 1713) —— , A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion, 2 vols (London: [n. pub.], 1737) —— , An Essay Concerning the Use of Reason in Propositions, the Evidence Whereof Depends upon Human Testimony (London: [n. pub.], 1707) —— , A Vindication of the Divine Attributes (London: Baldwin, 1710) Collinson, John, History and Antiquities of the County of Somerset, 3 vols (Bath: Cruttwell, 1791) Cooke, Edward, Argumentum Anti-Normannicum, or, an Argument Proving, from Ancient Histories and Records, that William, Duke of Normandy, Made No Absolute Conquest of England by the Sword, in the Sense of Our Modern Writers Being an Answer to Four Questions (London: J. D. for Keinton, Robinson, and Sprint, 1682) Confucius, La Morale de Confucius, philosophe de la Chine (Amsterdam: Savouret, 1688: 1st Engl. trans.: The Morals of Confucius, a Chinese Philosopher […] (London: Taylor, 1691)) Confucius Sinarum Philosophus, sive Scientia Sinensis Latine exposita, ed. by Philippe Couplet and others (Paris: Horthemels, 1687) Cowell, John, The Interpreter: Or Booke Containing the Signification of Words [...] as Are Mentioned in the Lawe Writers, or Statutes of this Victorious and Renowned Kingdome (Cambridge: Legate, 1607) Cuoco, Vincenzo, Saggio storico sulla Rivoluzione Napoletana del 1799 (Milano: Francesco Sonzogno, 1806; orig. publ. 1801) Du Halde, Jean-Baptiste, The General History of China: Containing a Geographical, Historical, Chronological, Political and Physical Description of the Empire of China, Chinese-Tartary, Corea and Thibet […], 3rd corr. edn, 4 vols (London: Watts, 1741) [Fielding, Henry], ‘A Literary Article’ (review of Irregular Dissertation), The Champion, 8 May 1740, 2 vols (London: Huggonson, 1741), 193–95 Gibson, Edmund, Reliquiae Spelmannianae: The Posthumous Works of Sir Henry Spelman, Kt., Relating to the Laws and Antiquities of England, Publish’d from the Original Manuscripts, With the Life of the Author (London: Churchill, 1698) Gordon, Thomas, The Apology for the Danger of the Church: Proving, that the Church is, and Ought to be Always in Danger. Being a Second Part of the Apology for Parson Alberoni (London: Roberts, 1719) —— , The Character of an Independent Whig, 3rd edn (London: Roberts, 1719) —— , A Collection of Papers All Written, Some of them Published, during the Late Rebellion, by the Author of the ‘Independent Whig’ (Dublin: Kilburn, 1748) —— , The Conspirators, or, The Case of Catiline, As Collected from the Best Historians, Im­ partially Examin’d; With Respect to his Declared and Covert Abettors; And the Arti­fices Used to Skreen the Conspirators from Punishment, 1 vol. in 2 pts (London: Roberts, 1721)

580

Bibliography

—— , The Creed of an Independent Whig: With an Orthodox Introduction, Concerning Canons, Councils, Mysteries, Miracles, and Church-authority (London: Roberts, 1720) —— , ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’, in Tacitus, The Works of Tacitus: With Political Discourses upon that Author by Thomas Gordon, Esq., ed. and trans. by Thomas Gordon, 4th edn, 5 vols (London: Rivington and others, 1770), IV, pp. 119–356 —— , ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’, in Tacitus, The Works of Tacitus: With Political Discourses upon that Author by Thomas Gordon, Esq., ed. and trans. by Thomas Gordon, 4th edn, 5 vols (London: Rivington and others, 1770), V, pp. 1–266 —— , Discours historiques et politiques sur Salluste par feu Mr Gordon, traduits de l’Anglois, par un de ses amis, trans. by Pierre Daudé, 2nd edn, 2 vols (Genève: Cramer, 1759; repr. 1762) —— , Discours historiques, critiques et politiques de Thomas Gordon, sur Tacite et sur Salluste; traduits de l’Anglais, trans. by Pierre Daudé, 2nd edn, 3 vols (Paris: Buisson, 1793–94; orig. publ. 1782) —— , Discours historiques, critiques et politiques sur Tacite, trans. by Pierre Daudé, 2 vols (Amsterdam: Changuion, 1742; repr. 1749; repr. in 3 vols, 1751) —— , Dix-septième lettre de Caton, traduite de l’Anglais de Thomas Gordon, trans. by Jean Louis Chalmel (Paris: Baudoin, [1790(?)]) —— , Die Ehre der Freiheit der Römer und Britten nach Gordons Staatsklugen Betrachtungen über den Tacitus (Nuremberg: Lochner, 1764) —— , Essay on Government (London: Roberts, 1747) —— , An Examination of the Facts and Reasonings in the Lord Bishop of Chichester’s Sermon Preached before the House of Lords on the 31st of January last, 4th edn (London: Peele, 1732) —— , Four Letters Taken from the General Evening Post, Relating to the Present Rebellion. To which is Subjoined, A Fifth Letter, from the Constitutional Journal, on the Same Subject ([London]: [n. pub.], 1745) —— , The Free Briton’s Answer to the Pretender’s Declaration: Supposed to be Wrote by His Grace The Lord A-b-sh-p of Y--ke (Dublin: Pilkington, 1745) —— , ‘The Intimate Resemblance between the Popish Clergy, and Those of Modern Paganism in the East’, in Thomas Gordon, A Collection of Papers (Dublin: Kilburn, 1748) (previously publ. in John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, The Independent Whig, 7th edn, 4 vols, London: Peele, 1741–47), no. 23, pp. 135–42 —— , A Letter of Consolation and Counsel to the Good People of England Occasioned by the Late Earthquake (London: Cooper, 1750) —— , A Modest Apology for Parson Alberoni (London: Roberts, 1719) —— , ‘Of the Strange Force of Education, Especially in Matters of Religion’, in John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, The Independent Whig: Or, A Defence of Primitive Chris­tianity, and of our Ecclesiastical Establishment, against the Exorbitant Claims and Encroachments of Fanatical and Disaffected Clergymen, 1st American edn from the 6th London edn, 4 vols in 1 (Hartford: Marsh, 1816), iii, no. 65, pp. 39–42 —— , ‘The Passionate and Ridiculous Application of Divine Judgments, by Visionary, Selfish, and Factious Spirits. It Is Urged for Argument where Reason Is Wanting’, in Thomas Gordon, A Collection of Papers (Dublin: Kilburn, 1748) (previously publ.

Bibliography

581

in John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, The Independent Whig, 7th edn, 4 vols, London: Peele, 1741–47, iv (1747), no. 25, pp. 170–77) —— , ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’, in Sallust, The Works of Sallust, Translated into English with Political Discourses upon that Author: To Which Is Added, A Translation of Cicero’s Four Orations against Catiline, ed. and trans. by Thomas Gordon (London: Woodward and Peele, 1744) pp. 1–202 —— , Ruah Kritikon: A Short Comment Upon the Revelation of Jeremiah Van Husen, the Prophet: In which Is More Particularly Discuss’d the Authority of that Contested Passage Concerning the B[ishop] of B[ango]r’s Advancement to the Archiepiscopal See of C[anterbur]y. By a Believer (London: Boreham, 1720) —— , A Sermon Preached before the Learned Society of Lincoln’s Inn on January 30. 1732, from Job xxxiv. 30: ‘That the Hypocrite Reign Not, Lest the People Be Ensnared’ by a Layman, 5th edn (London: Peele, 1733) —— , Il simbolo di un uomo non sacerdote, ossia La professione di fede di un uomo disinteressato. Traduzione dall’inglese (Milano: Pogliani, [1720]) —— , A True Account of a Revelation Lately Discover’d to Jeremiah van Husen, a German Physician, as he Deliver’d in an Oath before John Shepherd, Esq; One of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace, Foretelling Many Strange Events, Particularly the End of the World, 3rd edn (London: Roberts, 1719) —— , The True Crisis: Shewing the Name, Origin and Power of Parliaments, with their Particular Use and Business […] (London: Wilford, 1730) —— , ‘The Tryal of William Whiston’, in The Tryal of William Whiston, Clerk, for De­ faming and Denying the Holy Trinity, Before the Lord Chief Justice Reason: To which is Subjoined, a New Catechism for the Fine Ladies, with a Specimen of a New Version of the Psalms by Mr. Pope, & C., 3rd edn (London: A Society for the Encouragement of Learning, 1740; orig. publ. 1734) —— , Two Dialogues: i. Between Monsieur Jurieu and a Burgomaster of Rotterdam. ii. Between a Country-Clergyman and a Quaker (Amsterdam: Printed for the Benefit of the Publick, 1740; orig. publ. in The British Journal (1720s), nos 66–68 and 75–78) —— , Warning to the Whigs and the Well-affected Tories (London: Roberts, 1744) Gordon, Thomas, and others, The Pillars of Priestcraft and Orthodoxy Shaken, ed. by Richard Barron, 4 vols (London: Griffths, 1752) Grey, Zachary, The Spirit of Infidelity Detected: In Answer to a Scandalous Pamphlet, intituled, The Spirit of Ecclesiasticks of All Sects, and Ages, as to the Doctrines of Morality; and more […] (London: Clarke, 1735) Harrington, James, The Political Works of James Harrington, ed. by J. G. A. Pocock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) Herder, Johann Gottfried, Briefe zur Beförderung der Humanität, 10 vols (Riga: [n. pub.], 1793–97) Histoire générale des cérémonies, mœurs et coutumes religieuses de tous les peuples du monde, représentées en 243 figures dessinées de la main de Bernard Picart: avec des explications historiques et curieuses, ed. by Antoine Banier and Jean-Baptiste Le Mascrier, 7 vols (Paris: Rollin, 1741)

582

Bibliography

Hoadly, Benjamin, The Nature of the Kingdom or Church of Christ, or a Sermon Preach’d before the King at the Royal Chapel of St. James’s, on Sunday, March 31st, 1717 (London: Knapton and Childe, 1717) Holbach, Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d’, L’Esprit du clergé, ou le christianisme primitif vengé des entreprises et des excès de nos prêtres modernes (Amsterdam: [n. pub.], 1767) Irregular Dissertation, Occasioned by the Reading of Father Du Halde’s Description of China: Which May Be Read at Any Time Except in the Present Year 1740 (London: Roberts, 1740) James I, King of England, Counterblaste to Tobacco (London: B[arker],1604) —— , King James VI and I: Political Writings, ed. by Johann P. Sommerville (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006; orig. publ. 1994) King, William, Essay on the Origin of Evil, ed. and trans. by Edmund Law (London: Thurlbourn, 1731) Le Clerc, Jean, review of ‘Confucius Sinarum Philosophus’, in Bibliothèque universelle et historique de l’année 1687 (Amsterdam: [n. pub.], 1688), pp. 387–455 —— , Ars critica in qua ad studia linguarum Latinae, Graecae et Hebraicae munitur […], 2 vols (Amsterdam: Gallet, 1697) Le Comte, Louis, Memoirs and Observations [...] Made in a Late Journey Through the Empire of China […], 3rd corr. edn (London: Tooke, 1699) Lesueur, Théodore, A French Draft Constitution of 1792 Modelled on James Harrington’s Oceana, ed. by Sten Bodvar Liljegren (Lund: Gleerup; London: Oxford University Press, 1932) Lettres édifiantes et curieuses, écrites des missions étrangères, 34 vols in 32 (Paris: Leclerc, 1707–76) Lockman, John, A History of the Cruel Sufferings of the Protestants, and Others, by Popish Persecutions, in Various Countries: Together with a View of the Reformations of the Church of Rome (London: Clarke and others, 1760) Locke, John, The Correspondence of John Locke, ed. by E. S. De Beer, 8 vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976–89) Machiavelli, Niccolò, Discourses on Livy, trans. by Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) Mandeville, Bernard de, The Fable of the Bees or Private Vices, Publick Benefits, with com­ mentary by Frederick Benjamin Kaye, 2 vols (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988; orig. publ. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924) [Marforio, pseud.], An Historical View of the Principles, Characters, Persons, & c. of the Political Writers in Great Britain […] (London: Webb, 1740) Middleton, Conyers, A Letter from Rome Shewing an Exact Conformity between Popery and Paganism: or, the Religion of the Present Romans to be Derived Entirely from that of their Heathen Ancestors (London: Innys, 1729) —— , The Miscellaneous Works of the Late Reverend and Learned Conyers Middleton, 4 vols (London: Manby and Cox, 1752)

Bibliography

583

Mussard, Pierre, Conformité des cérémonies modernes avec les anciennes: ou il est prouvé par des autoritez incontestables que les cérémonies de l’Eglise Romaine sont empruntées des payens […] ([Leiden]: [n. pub.], 1667) Nichols, John, Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, Comprizing Biographical Mem­oirs of W. Bowyer, and Many of his Learned Friends, An Incidental View of the Progress and Advancement of Literature in this Kingdom during the Last Century, and Biographical Anecdotes of a Considerable Number of Eminent Writers and Ingenious Artists […], 7 vols and two supplements (London: Nichols, Son, and Bentley, 1812–16) Orléans, Pierre Joseph d’, History of the Revolutions in England under the Family of the Stuarts, from the Year 1603, to 1690 […] Translated from the French original (London: Curll, 1711) Osborne, Francis, Historical Memoires on the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James (London: Grismond, 1658) ‘Parliamentary Reporting’, in Companion to the Newspaper; and Journal of Facts in Politics, Statistics, and Public Economy, 2 (1 April 1833), pp. 17–21 Petyt, William, The Ancient Right of the Commons of England Asserted; or, A Discourse Proving by Records and the Best Historians, that the Commons of England Were Ever an Essential Part of Parliament (London: Smith and others, 1680) Poiret, Pierre, Cogitationes rationales de Deo, anima, et malo, libri quatuor, 2nd edn (Amsterdam: Blaviana, 1685) Pope, Alexander, Mr. Pope’s Literary Correspondence, Volume the Fourth: With Letters, &c. to, and from, Mr. Addison. Bishop Atterbury. [...], 2nd edn (London: Curll, 1736) Popple, William, A Discourse of Humane Reason: With Relation to Matters of Religion (London: Churchill, 1690) Radicati, Alberto, Discorsi morali, istorici e politici: Il Nazareno e Licurgo messi in parallelo, ed. by Duccio Canestri, with an intro. by Giuseppe Ricuperati (Torino: Aragno, 2007) —— , A Succinct History of Priesthood, Ancient and Modern: Humbly Inscrib’d to the Everillustrious, and Most Celebrated Sect of Free Thinkers (London: Gorham, 1737) [Ralph, James], The Case of Authors by Profession or Trade Stated: With Regard to Book­ sellers, the Stage, and the Public, No Matter by Whom (London: Griffiths, 1758) Rapin-Thoyras, Paul de, Histoire d’Angleterre, 4 vols (Basel: Brandmuller, 1740) —— , The History of England, Written in French, trans. by Nicholas Tindal, 2nd edn, 2 vols (London: Knapton, 1732–33) Rawle, Francis, Ways and Means for the Inhabitants of Delaware to Become Rich: Wherein the Several Growths and Products of these Countries are Demonstrated to be a Sufficient Fund for a Flourishing Trade (Philadelphia: Keimer, 1725) Sallust, Opere di Caio Sallustio Crispo, ed. by Paolo Frassinetti and Lucia di Salvo (Torino: UTET 1996, orig. publ. 1963) —— , The Works of Sallust, Translated into English with Political Discourses upon that Author: To Which Is Added, Translation of Cicero’s Four Orations against Catiline, ed. and trans. by Thomas Gordon (London: Woodward and Peele, 1744) Scaligerana, Thuana, Perroniana, Pithoeana, et Colomesiana: ou remarques historiques, critiques, morales, & litteraires de Jos. Scaliger, J. Aug. de Thou, le cardinal du Perron, Fr.

584

Bibliography

Pithou, & P. Colomies. Avec les notes de plusieurs savans, ed. by Pierre Des Maizeaux, 2 vols (Amsterdam: Cóvens & Mortier, 1740) Sherlock, Thomas, A Letter from the Lord Bishop of London to the Clergy and People, of London and Westminster; On Occasion of the Late Earthquakes (London: Whiston, 1750) Smith, Adam, Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, ed. by J. C. Bryce, in The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, ed. by Andrew Stewart Skinner and others, 6 vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976–87), iv (1983) Spedalieri, Nicola, Analisi dell’Esame critico del Signor Fréret (Assisi: Sgariglia, 1791; orig. publ. 1778) Spelman, Henry, Glossarium archaiologicum: continens latino-barbara, peregrina, obsoleta, & novatæ significationis vocabula […], ed. by William Dugdale (London: Warren, 1664) Stuart Royal Proclamations, ed. by James F. Larkin and Paul L. Hughs, 2 vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973) Tacitus, Cornelius, Ab excessu divi Augusti (Annales) (Milano: BUR, 2007; orig. publ. 1981) —— , De origine et situ Germanorum (Milano: BUR, 2009; orig. publ. 1990) —— , De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae (Milano: BUR, 2009; orig. publ. 1990) —— , Historiae (Milano: BUR, 2007; orig. publ. 1992) —— , The Works of Tacitus: With Political Discourses upon that Author by Thomas Gordon, Esq., ed. and trans. by Thomas Gordon, 4th edn, 5 vols (London: Rivington and others, 1770; orig. publ. 1728–31) Temple, William, An Introduction to the History of England, 3rd edn (London: Simpson, 1708; orig. publ. 1695) —— , The Works of Sir William Temple […], 4 vols (London: Brotherton and others, 1770) Tindall, Matthew, Christianity as Old as the Creation: or, the Gospel, A Republication of the Religion of Nature (London: [n. pub.], 1730) Titius, Gottlieb Gerhard, Observationes in Samuelis L. B. de Pufendorf De officio hominis et civis juxta legem naturalem: libros duos […] (Leipzig: Lanckis, 1703) Trenchard, John, and Thomas Gordon, Brieven over de Vryheid, en het geluk des Volks onder een Goede Regeering; in ’t Engelsch uitgegeeven op den naam van Cato, en nu naar den vyfden druk in ’t Nederduitsch vertaald, 3 vols (Amsterdam: Van Tongerlo and Houttuyn, 1754) —— , Cato’s Letters, or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects, ed. by Ronald Hamowy, 4 vols in two (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1995; based on the 1755 corr. edn) —— , A Collection of Tracts by the Late John Trenchard, Esq., and Thomas Gordon, Esq., 2 vols (London: Cogan, 1751) —— , The Independent Whig, or, a Defence of Primitive Christianity, and of our Ecclesiastical Establishment, against the Exorbitant Claims and Encroachments of Fanatical and Disaffected Clergymen, 7th edn, 4 vols (London: Peele, 1741–47) —— , The Independent Whig, or, a Defence of Primitive Christianity, and of our Ecclesiastical Establishment, against the Exorbitant Claims and Encroachments of Fanatical and Disaffected Clergymen, 1st American edn, 4 vols (Hartford: Marsh, 1816)

Bibliography

585

Tyrrell, James, The General History of England, as Well Ecclesiastical as Civil, from the Earliest Accounts of Time, to the Reign of his Present Majesty King William, Taken from the Most Ancient Records, Manuscripts, and Historians, Containing the Lives of the Kings and Memorials of the Most Eminent Persons Both in the Church and State, with the Foundations of the Noted Monasteries and Both the Universities, 3 vols (London: Rhodes and others, 1696–1704) Walpole, Horace, The Yale Edition of Horace Walpole’s Correspondence, ed. by W. S. Lewis, 48 vols (New Haven, Conn.: Yale UP; London: Oxford UP, 1937–83) Whiston, William, An Essay Towards Restoring the True Text of the Old Testament; and for Vindicating the Citations Made thence in the New Testament (London: Senex and Taylor, 1722) Wilson, Arthur, The History of Great Britain, Being the Life and Reign of King James the First (London: Lownds, 1653) Witty, John, The First Principles of Modern Deism Confuted (London: Wyat, 1707)

Secondary Studies Agnesina, Jacopo, ‘Sur l’attribution à Anthony Collins du “Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony in Writing”’, La Lettre clandestine, 17 (2009), 277–89 Allen, Anita L., and Thaddeus M. Pope, ‘Social Contract Theory, Slavery, and the Antebellum Courts’, in Companion to African-American Philosophy, ed. by Tommy L. Lott and John P. Pittman (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), pp. 125–33 Anderson, Paul Bunyan, ‘Cato’s Obscure Counterpart in The British Journal 1722–25’, Studies in Philology, 34 (1937), 412–28 The Anthropology of the Enlightenment, ed. by Larry Wolff and Marco Cipolloni (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007) Appleby, Joyce, ‘Republicanism and Ideology’, American Quarterly, 37 (1985), 461–73 Appleton, William W., A Cycle of Cathay: The China Vogue in England during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (New York: Columbia University Press, 1951) Armitage, David, ‘Empire and Liberty: A Republican Dilemma’, in Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, ed. by Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner, 2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), ii: The Values of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe, pp. 29–46 Armogathe, J.-R., ‘Voltaire et la Chine: une mise au point’, in La mission française de Pékin aux xviie et xviiie siècles: Actes du ier colloque international de sinologie, Centre de recherches interdisciplinaire de Chantilly, 20–22 septembre 1974 (Paris: Belles lettres, 1976), pp. 27–39 Atto, Clayon, ‘The Society for the Encouragement of Learning’, The Library, 4th ser., 19 (1938), 263–88 Bailyn, Bernard, The Origins of American Politics (New York: Vintage, 1967) Baines, Paul, and Pat Rogers, Edmund Curll, Bookseller (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007)

586

Bibliography

Barry, Heather E., A ‘Dress Rehearsal’ For Revolution: John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon’s Works in Eighteenth-Century British America (Lanham: University Press of America, 2007) Bartlett, Robert, England under the Norman and Angevin Kings 1075–1225 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000) Battista, Anna Maria, ‘La Germania di Tacito nella Francia illuminista’, in La fortuna di Tacito dal sec. 15. ad oggi, Università di Urbino, Istituto di civiltà antiche della facoltà di magistero, Urbino, 9–11 ottobre 1978, ed. by Franco Gori and Cesare Questa, Studi urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura, 1–2 (Urbino: Argalia, 1979), pp. 110–13 Baumstark, Moritz, ‘David Hume: The Making of a Philosophical Historian. A Recon­ sideration’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2007) Benario, Herbert W., ‘The Classics in Southern Higher Education’, Southern Humanities Review, 11 (1977), 15–20 —— , ‘Gordon’s Tacitus’, The Classical Journal, 72 (1976–77), 107–14 Bennett, Gareth V., The Tory Crisis in Church and State, 1688–1730: The Career of Francis Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975) Benrekassa, Georges, ‘Camille Desmoulins écrivain révolutionnaire: “Le vieux Cordelier”’, in La Carmagnole des muses: l’homme de lettres et l’artiste dans la Révolution, ed. by Jean-Claude Bonnet (Paris: Colin, 1988), pp. 223–42 Berman, David, ‘David Hume and the Suppression of “Atheism”’, Journal of the History of Philosophy, 21 (1983), 375–87 Bernard Picart and the First Global Vision of Religion, ed. by Lynn Hunt, Margaret C. Jacob, and Wijnand Mijnhardt, Issues and Debates, 18 (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2010) Bitterling, Thies, ‘Studien zur Wirkung des Cornelius Tacitus in der Neuzeit’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Universität Göttingen, 1960) Bradley, James E., ‘Anti-Catholicism as Anglican Anticlericalism: Nonconformity and the Ideological Origins of Radical Disaffection’, in Anticlericalism in Britain, c. 1500– 1914, ed. by Nigel Aston and Matthew Cragoe (Stroud: Sutton, 2000), pp. 67–92 Bregman, Alexander, ‘Reading under the Folds: John Dickinson, Gordon’s Tacitus, and the American Revolution’ (unpublished senior honors thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Department of History, 2008) Browning, Reed, Political and Constitutional Ideas of the Court Whigs (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1982) Bullock, J. M., ‘“Tacitus” Gordon’s Friends’, Kirkcudbrightshire Advertiser, 15 June 1917, p.  3 —— , ‘Thomas Gordon, the “Independent Whig”: A Biographical Bibliography’, Aberdeen University Library Bulletin, 3 (1915–18), 598–612, 733–49 Burgess, Glenn, The Politics of the Ancient Constitution: An Introduction to English Political Thought, 1603–1642 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1992) Burke, Peter, ‘A Survey of the Popularity of Ancient Historians, 1450–1700’, History and Theory, 5 (1966), 135–52 —— , ‘Tacitism’, in Tacitus, ed. by T. A. Dorey (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969), pp. 149–71

Bibliography

587

—— , ‘Tacitism, Scepticism, and Reason of State’, in The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700, ed. by J. H. Burns with the assistance of Mark Goldie, The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008; orig. publ. 1991), pp. 479–98 —— , ‘Translating Histories’, in Cultural Translation in Early Modern Europe, ed. by Peter Burke and R. Po-Chia Hsia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 125–41 The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700, ed. J. H. Burns, with the assistance of Mark Goldie. The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) Burtt, Shelley, Virtue Transformed: Political Argument in England, 1688–1740 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) Calendar of Treasury Books and Papers Preserved in Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, ed. by William A. Shaw, 5 vols (London: HMSO/Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1898–1903) Carswell, John, The South Sea Bubble (Dover: Sutton , 1993; orig. publ. London: Cressett, 1960) Carter, Philip, ‘Men about Town: Representations of Foppery and Masculinity in Early Eighteenth-Century Urban Society’, in Gender in Eighteenth-Century England: Roles, Representations and Responsibilities, ed. by Hannah Barker and Elaine Chalus (London: Longman, 1997), pp. 31–57 Challe, Robert, Difficultés sur la religion proposées au père Malebranche, ed. by Frédéric Deloffre and Melâhat Menemencioglu, Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 209 (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1983) Champion, Justin, ‘“Anglia Libera”: Commonwealth Politics in the Early Years of George I’, in “Cultures of Whiggism”: New Essays on English Literature and Culture in the Long Eighteenth Century, ed. by David Womersley (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2005), pp. 86–123 —— , ‘“I remember a Mahometan Story of Ahmed ben Edris”: Freethinking Uses of Islam from Stubbe to Toland’, Al-Qantara, 31 (2010), 443–80 —— , Republican Learning: John Toland and the Crisis of Christian Culture, 1696–1722 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003) —— , The Pillars of Priestcraft Shaken: The Church of England and its Enemies, 1660–1730, Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) Colbourn, H. Trevor, The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1965) —— , ‘Thomas Jefferson’s Use of the Past’, William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 15 (1958), 56–70 Cook, Elizabeth Christine, Literary Influences in Colonial Newspapers 1704–1750 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1912) Croft-Murray, Edward, ‘Catalogue of British Drawings in the British Museum: Artists Born 1665 to 1715’ (unpublished manuscript in British Museum, Prints and Drawings, 1954–73)

588

Bibliography

Curtis, Michael, Orientalism and Islam: European Thinkers on Oriental Despotism in the Middle East and India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) ‘Daniel Bellamy the Elder (b. 1687)’, in The Dictionary of National Biography, ed. by Leslie Stephen and others, 63 vols and 3 supplements (London, Oxford University Press, 1885–1904) Dedieu, Joseph, Montesquieu et la tradition politique anglaise en France: les sources anglaises de l’‘Esprit des Lois’ (Paris: Gabalda, 1909) De Lisle, Leanda, After Elizabeth: The Rise of James of Scotland and the Struggle for the Throne of England (New York: Ballantine, 2007) Dickinson, H. T., ‘Thomas Spence (1750–1814)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. by Colin Matthew and Brian Harrison, 60 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) [accessed 10 July 2012] Disraeli, Isaac, ‘Of Des Maizeaux, and the Secret History of Anthony Collins’s Manu­ scripts’, in Isaac Disraeli, Curiosities of Literature, 3 vols (London: Routledge, 1858), iii, 13–23 [Dodgson, Campbell], ‘The Print Room of the British Museum’, Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, 1 (1903), 134–39 Dodgson, Edward S., ‘Thomas Gordon: The Date of his Birth’, Notes and Queries, 12th ser., 3 (61) (1917), 146 Douais, Abbé, ‘Le Marquis de Pégueirolles, avocat-général, président à mortier au Parle­ ment de Toulouse et mainteneur des jeux floraux (1721–1794)’, Mémoires de l’Académie des sciences, inscriptions et belles-lettres de Toulouse, 4 (1892), 455–81 Douglas, David C., William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact Upon England (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964) Duffy, Eamon, ‘Whiston’s Affair: the Trials of a Primitive Christian 1709–1714’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 27 (1976), 129–50 Dworetz, Steven M., The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994; orig. publ. 1988) Eijnatten, Joris van, ‘The Church Fathers Assessed: Nature, Bible and Morality in Jean Barbeyrac’, De Achttiende Eeuw, 35 (2003), 15–25 —— , ‘Swiss Anticlericalism in the United Provinces, Jean Barbeyrac’s “Oratio de magistratu, forte peccante, e pulpitis sacris non traducendo” (1721)’, in La formazione storica della alterità: studi sulla storia della tolleranza nell’Europa moderna offerti a Antonio Rotondò, ed. by Henry Méchoulan and others, 3 vols (Firenze: Olschki, 2001), iii, 861–86 Elukin, Jonathan M., ‘Jacques Basnage and the History of the Jews: Anti-Catholic Polemic and Historical Allegory in the Republic of Letters’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 53 (1992), 603–30 Enlightenment Portraits, ed. Michel Vovelle, trans. by Lydia G. Cochrane (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997) Etiemble, René, L’Europe chinoise, 2 vols (Paris: Gallimard, 1988–89) Facing Each Other: The World’s Perception of Europe and Europe’s Perception of the World, ed. Anthony Pagden. 2 vols, Expanding World, 31 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000)

Bibliography

589

Factions No More: Attitudes to Party in Government and Opposition in Eighteenth Century Eng­land; Extracts from Contemporary Sources, ed. by J. A. W. Gunn (London: Cass, 1972) Fan, Cunzhong, ‘Chinese Fables and Anti-Walpole Journalism’, Review of English Stud­ ies, 25 (1949), 141–51 (repr. in The Vision of China in the English Literature of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ed. by Adrian Hsia (Hong Kong: Chinese Uni­ versity Press, 1998), pp. 249–62) —— , ‘Dr. Johnson and Chinese Culture’, Quarterly Bulletin of Chinese Bibliography, 5 (1945), 1–17 (repr. in The Vision of China in the English Literature of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ed. by Adrian Hsia (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1998), pp. 263–82) Force, James E., William Whiston, Honest Newtonian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) Gerrard, Christine, The Patriot Opposition to Walpole: Politics, Poetry, and National Myth, 1725–1742 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) Geuna, Marco, ‘Republicanism and Commercial Society in the Scottish Enlightenment: The Case of Adam Ferguson’, in Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, ed. by Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner, 2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), ii: The Values of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe, pp. 177–95 Gibson, Alan, ‘Ancients, Moderns and Americans: The Republican–Liberalism Debate Revisited’, History of Political Thought, 21 (2000), 261–307 Gibson, William, Enlightenment Prelate: Benjamin Hoadly 1676–1761 (Cambridge: Clarke, 2004) Gibson-Wood, Carol, Jonathan Richardson, Art Theorist of the English Enlightenment (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000) Ginzburg, Carlo, ‘Ancora sui riti cinesi: documenti vecchi e nuovi’, in A dieci anni dall’aper­tura dell’Archivio della Congregazione per la dottrina della fede: storia e archivi dell’Inquisizione (Roma, 21–23 febbraio 2008) (Roma: Scienze e Lettere, 2011), pp. 131–44 —— , ‘Making Things Strange: The Prehistory of a Literary Device’, Representations, 56 (1996), 8–28 —— , ‘Provincializing the World: Europeans, Indians, Jews (1704)’, Postcolonial Studies, 14 (2011), 135–50 —— , Threads and Traces: True False Fictive (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012) Goldie, Mark, ‘The English System of Liberty’, in The Cambridge History of EighteenthCentury Political Thought, ed. by Mark Goldie and Robert Wokler, The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 40–78 —— , ‘The Roots of True Whiggism, 1688–1694’, History of Political Thought, 1 (1980), 195–236 Gordon, Bruce, The Swiss Reformation (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002) Grafton, Anthony, What Was History? The Art of History in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)

590

Bibliography

Green, Judith A., Henry I, King of England and Duke of Normandy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) Greenberg, Janelle, The Radical Face of the Ancient Constitution: St Edward’s ‘Laws’ in Early Modern Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) Grist, Elizabeth, ‘Rainbow Coffee House Group (act. 1702–1730)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. by Colin Matthew and Brian Harrison, 60 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) [accessed 28 May 2012] Guerci, Luciano, ‘Incredulità e rigenerazione nella Lombardia del triennio repubblicano’, Rivista storica italiana, 109 (1997), 49–120 Gunn, J. A. W., Beyond Liberty and Property: The Process of Self-Recognition in EighteenthCentury Political Thought, McGill-Queen’s Studies in the History of Ideas, 6 (Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1983) Guy, Basil, The French Image of China Before and After Voltaire, Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 21 (Genève: Institut et Musée Voltaire, 1963) Guy, John, Tudor England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990) Haag, Eugene, and Emile Haag, La France protestante, 6 vols (Paris: Sandoz et Fischbacher, 1877–88) Haines, Roy Martin, King Edward II: His Life, his Reign, and its Aftermath, 1284–1330 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003) Hammersley, Rachel, The English Republican Tradition and Eighteenth-Century France: Between the Ancients and the Moderns (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010) —— , French Revolutionaries and English Republicans: The Cordeliers Club, 1790–1794 (Rochester: Boydell, 2005) Hanson, Laurence William, Government and the Press 1695–1763, 2nd edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967; orig. publ. 1936) Harris, James, Of Liberty and Necessity: The Free Will Debate in Eighteenth-Century British Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005) Harris, Ron, ‘The Bubble Act: Its Passage and its Effect on Business Organization’, Journal of Economic History, 54 (1994), 610–27 Hazard, Paul, La pensée européenne au xviiie siècle: de Montesquieu à Lessing (Paris: Hachette, 2006; orig. publ. Paris: Boivin, 1946) Hicks, Philip, Neoclassical History and English Culture: From Clarendon to Hume (London: Macmillan, 1996) Higgins, Ian, ‘Remarks on Cato’s Letters’, in ‘Cultures of Whiggism’: New Essays on English Literature and Culture in the Long Eighteenth Century, ed. by David Womersley (Newark: University of Delaware Press), pp. 127–46 Hodgen, Margaret T., Early Anthropology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1964) Hoover, Benjamin B., Samuel Johnson’s Parliamentary Reporting: Debates in the Senate of Lilliput (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1953)

Bibliography

591

Hoppit, Julian, ‘The Myths of the South Sea Bubble’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th ser., 12 (2002), 141–65 Horsley, Lee, ‘Vox Populi in the Political Literature of 1710’, Huntington Library Quarterly, 38 (1975), 335–53 Hsia, Adrian, ed., The Vision of China in the English Literature of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1998) Hsia, Ronnie Po-chia, ‘Language Acquisition and Missionary Strategies in China, 1580–1760’, in Per Adriano Prosperi, 3 vols, ii: L’Europa divisa e i nuovi mondi, ed. by Massimo Donattini, Giuseppe Marcocci, and Stefania Pastore (Pisa: Normale, 2011), pp. 147–58 Hunt, Lynn, Margaret C. Jacob, and Wijnand Mijnhardt, The Book that Changed Europe: Picart & Bernards’s ‘Religious Ceremonies of the World’ (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2010) Hutton, Sarah, ‘“The Man in the Moone” and the New Astronomy: Godwin, Gilbert, Kepler’, Etudes epistémè, 7 (2005), 3–13 Israel, Jonathan I., ‘Admiration of China and Classical Thought in the Radical Enlight­en­ ment (1685–1740)’, Taiwan Journal of East Asian Studies, 4 (2007), 1–25 —— , Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750–1790 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) —— , Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670–1752 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) —— , ‘The Intellectual Origins of Modern Democratic Republicanism (1660–1720)’, European Journal of Political Theory, 3 (2004), 7–36 —— , Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650–1750 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) Jacob, Margaret C., ‘The Nature of Early Eighteenth-Century Religious Radicalism’, Republics of Letters, 1 (2009), 1–11 —— , ‘Was the Eighteenth-Century Republican Essentially Anticapitalist?’, Republics of Letters, 2 (2010), 11–20 Jacobson, David L., ‘Thomas Gordon’s Works of Tacitus in Pre-Revolutionary America’, Bulletin of the New York Public Library, 69 (1965), 58–64 Jones, Clyve, ‘The “Reforming” Sunderland/Stanhope Ministry and the Opening of the 1718–19 Session of Parliament in the House of Lords’, Historical Research, 78 (2005), 58–73 Kadane, Matthew, ‘Anti-Trinitarianism and the Republican Tradition in Enlightenment Britain’, Republics of Letters, 2 (2010), 38–54 Kahn, Andrew, ‘Readings of Imperial Rome from Lomonosov to Pushkin’, Slavic Review, 52 (1993), 745–68 Kapust, Daniel, ‘Cato’s Virtues and The Prince: Reading Sallust’s War with Catiline with Machiavelli’s The Prince’, History of Political Thought, 28 (2007), 433–48 Kendrick, T. F. J., ‘Sir Robert Walpole, the Old Whigs and the Bishops, 1733–1736: A Study in Eighteenth-Century Parliamentary Politics’, The Historical Journal, 11 (1968), 421–45

592

Bibliography

‘Kingsborough’, in The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, ed. by George Edward Cokayne and others, 13 vols (London: St. Catherine Press, 1910–59; facsimile repr. Gloucester: Sutton, 1982, 1984), vii, 293–94 Kirk, Clara Marburg, Sir William Temple: A Seventeenth-Century ‘Libertin’ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1932) Knights, Mark, ‘The Tory Interpretation of History in the Rage of Parties’, Huntington Library Quarterly, 68 (2005), 353–73 Koenigsberger, H. G., ‘Republicanism, Monarchy and Liberty’, in Royal and Republican Sovereignty in Early Modern Europe, ed. by Robert Oresko, G. C. Gibbs, and H. M. Scott (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 43–74 Kramnick, Isaac, ‘Augustan Politics and English Historiography: The Debate on the English Past, 1730–35’, History and Theory, 6 (1967), 33–56 —— , ‘Republican Revisionism Revisited’, American Historical Review, 87 (1982), 629–64 Krebs, Christopher, A Most Dangerous Book: Tacitus’s ‘Germania’ from the Roman Empire to the Third Reich (New York: Norton, 2011) Kuznicki, Jason T., ‘Sorcery and Publicity: The Cadière-Girard Scandal of 1730–1731’, French History, 21 (2007), 289–312 La Penna, Antonio, ‘Storiografia di senatori e storiografia di letterati: considerazioni generali sulla storiografia latina dell’età repubblicana’, in Antonio La Penna, Aspetti del pensiero storico latino: con due scritti sulla scuola classica, Piccola Biblioteca Einaudi, 354 (Torino: Einaudi, 1978), pp. 43–104 —— , ‘Tacito nella riflessione politica di Diderot’, in La fortuna di Tacito dal sec. 15. ad oggi, Università di Urbino, Istituto di civiltà antiche della Facoltà di Magistero, Urbino, 9–11 ottobre 1978, ed. by Franco Gori and Cesare Questa, Studi urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura, 1–2 (Urbino: Argalia, 1979), pp. 133–66 —— , ‘Vivere sotto i tiranni: un tema tacitiano da Guicciardini a Diderot’, in Aspetti del pensiero storico latino: con due scritti sulla scuola classica, Piccola Biblioteca Einaudi, 354 (Torino: Einaudi, 1978), pp. 225–38 Lach, Donald F., Asia in the Making of Europe, 3 vols in 9 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965–93) Lai, Yuen-Ting, ‘The Linking of Spinoza to Chinese Thought by Bayle and Malebranche’, Journal of the History of Philosophy, 23 (1985), 151–78 Langford, Paul, Walpole and the Robinocracy (Cambridge: Chadwyck–Healey, 1986) Larrimore, Mark, ‘Orientalism and Antivoluntarism in the History of Ethics: On Christian Wolff ’s “Oratio de Sinarum Philosophia Practica”’, Journal of Religious Ethics, 28 (2000), 189–219 Lee, Thomas H. C., ed., China and Europe: Images and Influences in Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1991) Lee, J. Patrick, ‘The Unexamined Premise: Voltaire, John Lockman and the Myth of the English Letters’, Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 10 (2001), 240–70 Leed, Jacob, ‘Johnson, Du Halde, and the Life of Confucius’, Bulletin of the New York Public Library, 70 (1966), 189–99

Bibliography

593

Leites, Edmund, ‘Confucianism in Eighteenth-Century England: Natural Morality and Social Reform’, Philosophy East and West, 28 (1978), 143–59 Levine, Joseph M., Humanism and History: Origins of Modern English Historiography (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987) Louden, Robert B., ‘“What Does Heaven Say?”: Christian Wolff and Western Inter­pre­ta­ tions of Confucian Ethics’, in Confucius and the Analects: New Essays, ed. by Bryan W. van Norden (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 73–93 Lundbaek, Knud, ‘The Image of Neo-Confucianism in Confucius Sinarum Philosophus’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 44 (1983), 19–30 MacKenzie, Raymond N., ‘Curll, Edmund (d. 1747)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography ed. by Colin Matthew and Brian Harrison, 60 vols (Oxford: Oxford Uni­ versity Press, 2004) [accessed 4 Aug 2012] MacLean, Gerald, and Nabil Matar, Britain and the Islamic World 1558–1713 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) Manuel, Frank Edward, The Eighteenth Century Confronts the Gods (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959) Marshall, P. J., and Glyndwr Williams, The Great Map of Mankind: British Perceptions of the World in the Age of the Enlightenment (London: Dent, 1982) McDermott, Gerard R., Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods: Christian Theology, En­light­ enment Religion, and Non-Christian Faiths (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) McKenna, Antony, ‘“Le Symbole d’un laïque, ou la profession de foi d’un homme dés­in­ téressé”: un pamphlet “anglais” de d’Holbach’, La Lettre clandestine, 15 (2007), 209–20 McMahon, Marie, The Radical Whigs, John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon: Libertarian Loyalists to the New House of Hannover (Lanham: University Press of America, 1990) Menzel, Johanna M., ‘The Sinophilism of J. H. G. Justi’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 17 (1956), 300–10 Mervart, David, ‘A Closed Country in the Open Seas: Engelbert Kaempfer’s Japanese Solution for European Modernity’s Predicament’, History of European Ideas, 35 (2009), 321–29 Minuti, Rolando, ‘L’immagine dell’Islam nel Settecento: note sulla traduzione francese del “De religione Mohammedica” di Adriaan Reeland’, Studi settecenteschi, 25–26 (2005–06), 23–45 —— , ‘Comparatismo e idolatrie orientali nelle “Cérémonies religieuses” di Bernard e Picart’, Rivista storica italiana, 121 (2009), 1028–72 —— , Orientalismo e idee di tolleranza nella cultura francese del primo ’700 (Firenze: Olschki, 2006) —— , ‘Orientalismo e idea di tolleranza nelle “Lettres chinoises” di Boyer d’Argens’, in La formazione storica della alterità: studi sulla storia della tolleranza nell’Europa moderna offerti a Antonio Rotondò, ed. by Henry Méchoulan and others, 3 vols (Firenze: Olschki, 2001), iii, 887–920 —— , ‘Il problema costituzionale nell’Histoire d’Angleterre di Rapin-Thoyras’, Studi sette­ centeschi, 5 (1984), 49–107

594

Bibliography

Mitchell, Annie, ‘The Character of an Independent Whig: A Study of the Work of John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Including a Comparative Analysis of the Social and Political Thought of Bernard Mandeville’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University College London, 2002) —— , ‘Character of an Independent Whig: “Cato” and Bernard Mandeville’, History of European Ideas, 29 (2003), 291–311 —— , ‘A Liberal Republican “Cato”’, American Journal of Political Science, 48 (2004), 588–603 Momigliano, Arnaldo, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, ed. by Riccardo Di Donato, Sather Classical Lectures, 54 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990) Monnier, Raymonde, ‘Républicanisme et révolution française’, French Historical Studies, 26 (2003), 87–118 Morgan, Edmund S., Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (New York: Norton, 1988) Mungello, David E., ‘Confucianism in the Enlightenment: Antagonism and Collaboration between the Jesuits and the Philosophers’, in China and Europe: Images and Influences in Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries, ed. by Thomas H. C. Lee (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1991), pp. 99–127 —— , Curious Land: Jesuit Accommodation and the Origins of Sinology (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989) —— , ‘European Philosophical Responses to Non-European Culture: China’, in The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, ed. by Daniel Garber and Michael Ayers, 2 vols (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), i, 87–100 —— , The Great Encounter of China and the West, 1500–1800, 3rd edn (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2009) Murphy, Sean, ‘Burke and Lucas: An Authorship Problem Re-Examined’, EighteenthCentury Ireland, 1 (1986), 143–56 Murray, Thomas, The Literary History of Galloway (Edinburgh: Waugh and Innes, 1832) Okie, Laird, Augustan Historical Writing: Histories of England in the English Enlightenment (Lanham: University Press of America, 1991) Osmond, Patricia J., ‘“Princeps Historiae Romanae”: Sallust in Renaissance Political Thought’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 40 (1995), 101–43 The Oxford History of Literary Translation in English, ed. by Peter France and Stuart Gillespie, 4 vols to date (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005–), III: 1660–1790, ed. by Stuart Gillespie and David Hopkins (2005) Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. Colin Matthew and Brian Harrison. 60 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) [accessed 18 Sep 2012] Pailin, David A., Attitudes to Other Religions: Comparative Religion in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Britain (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984)

Bibliography

595

Pangle, Thomas, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988) Panofsky-Soergel, Gerda S., Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin in Germany: Fiction as Facts, Opera slavica, 52 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010) Parsinnen, T. M., ‘Thomas Spence and the Origins of English Land Nationalization’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 34 (1973), 135–41 Paulson, Ronald, Hogarth’s Harlot: Sacred Parody in Enlightenment England (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003) Perkins, Franklin, Leibniz and China: A Commerce of Light (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) Pettit, Philip, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) Philp, Mark, ‘English Republicanism in the 1790s’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 6 (1998), 235–62 Pinot, Virgile, La Chine et la formation de l’esprit philosophique en France (1640–1740) (Genève: Slatkine Reprints, 1967; orig. publ. Paris: Geuthner, 1932) Pitassi, Maria-Cristina, De l’orthodoxie aux Lumières: Genève 1670–1737, Histoire et société, 24 (Genève: Labor et fides, 1992) Plomer, Henry R., ‘Roberts ( James)’, in A Dictionary of the Printers and Booksellers who Were at Work in England, Scotland and Ireland from 1668 to 1725, ed. by Arundell Esdaile (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922), p. 255 Pocock, J. G. A., The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987; orig. publ. 1957) —— , Barbarism and Religion, 6 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999–) —— , ‘Gibbon and the Idol Fo: Chinese and Christian History in the Enlightenment’, in Sceptics, Millenarians and Jews, ed. by David S. Katz and Jonathan I. Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1990), pp. 15–34 —— , ‘Historiography as a Form of Political Thought’, History of European Ideas, 37 (2011), 1–6 —— , ‘Machiavelli, Harrington, and English Political Ideologies in the Eighteenth Cen­ tury’, in Politics, Language, and Time: Essays On Political Thought and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), pp. 104–47 (orig. publ. in William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 22 (1965), 549–83) —— , The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975; 2nd edn, 2003) —— , ‘Robert Brady, 1627–1700: A Cambridge Historian of the Restoration’, Cambridge Historical Journal, 10 (1951), 186–204 —— , ‘The Varieties of Whiggism from Exclusion to Reform: A History of Ideology and Reform’, in Virtue, Commerce, and History: Essays on Political Thought and History, Chiefly in the Eighteenth Century, Ideas in Context, 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press, 1985), pp. 215–311 —— , Virtue, Commerce, and History: Essays on Political Thought and History, Chiefly in the Eighteenth Century, Ideas in Context, 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)

596

Bibliography

The Political Imagination in History: Essays Concerning J. G. A. Pocock, ed by D. N. DeLuna and others (Baltimore: Owlworks, 2006) Popkin, Richard H., ‘Some Aspects of Jewish-Christian Theological Interchanges in Holland and England 1640–1700’, in Jewish-Christian Relations in the Seventeenth Century, ed. by Johannes van den Berg and Ernestine van der Wall, International Archives of the History of Ideas, 119 (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1988), pp. 3–32 Quinn, Arthur, ‘“Meditating Tacitus”: Gibbon’s Adaptation to an Eighteenth Century Audience’, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70 (1984), pp. 53–68 Rahe, Paul A., ‘Antiquity Surpassed: The Repudiation of Classical Republicanism’, in Republicanism, Liberty and Commercial Society 1649–1776, ed. by David Wootton (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), pp. 233–69 Ramaswamy, Jaikur, ‘Reconstituting the “Liberty of the Ancients”: Public Credit, Popular Sovereignty and the Political Theory of the Terror during the French Revolution, 1789–1794’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Cambridge University, 1995) Les rapports entre la Chine et l’Europe au temps des Lumières: Actes du iie colloque inter­ national de sinologie, Centre de recherches interdisciplinaire de Chantilly, 16–18 septembre 1977 (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1980) Raskolnikoff, Mouza, Histoire romaine et critique historique dans l’Europe des Lumières (Roma: Ecole française de Rome, 1992) Realey, Charles Bechdolt, ‘The London Journal and its Authors, 1720–1723’, Bulletin of University of Kansas, 36 (1935), 1–38 Reinhold, Meyer, ‘Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought’, in Classical Influences on Western Thought ad 1650–1870, ed. by R. R. Bolgar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 223–43 Richard, Carl J., The Founders and the Classics: Greece, Rome and the American Enlighten­ ment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996; orig. publ. 1994) Robbins, Caroline, ‘Absolute Liberty: The Life and Thought of William Popple, 1638– 1708’, William and Mary Quarterly, 24 (1967), 190–223 —— , The Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959; repr. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2004) Rodgers, Daniel, ‘Republicanism: The Career of a Concept’, Journal of American History, 79 (1992), 11–38 Rodríguez-San Pedro Bezares, Luís E., and Juan Luis Polo Rodríguez, Saberes y disciplinas en las universidades hispánicas, Miscelánea Alfonso 9 (Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 2005) Roetz, Heiner, ‘The Influence of Foreign Knowledge on Eighteenth-Century European Secularism’, in Reconfigurations of the Religious Field: “Secularization” and Related Semantics in Intercultural, Historical and Political Perspective, ed. by Lucian Hölscher (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming) Rose, Jacqueline, ‘Robert Brady’s Intellectual History and Royalist Antipopery in Restora­ tion England’, English Historical Review, 122 (449) (2007), 1287–1317 Rossiter, Clinton L., Seedtime of the Republic: The Origin of the American Tradition of Political Liberty (New York: Harcourt, 1953)

Bibliography

597

Rothman, Irving N., ‘Lunacy, Thomas Gordon, and the Man in the Moon’, Institute for Space Systems Operations Annual Report (2007), 73–77 Rotondò, Antonio, ‘“Periculum criticum”: textus receptus e ambivalenze intellettuali’, in La centralità del dubbio: un progetto di Antonio Rotondò, ed. by Camilla Hermanin and Luisa Simonutti, Studi e testi per la storia della tolleranza in Europa nei secoli xvi–xviii, 13, 2 vols (Firenze: Olschki, 2011), i, 307–27 —— , ‘Tolleranza’, in L’Illuminismo: Dizionario storico, ed. by Vincenzo Ferrone and Daniel Roche, Storia e Società (Roma: Laterza, 1997), pp. 62–78 Rousseau, G. S., ‘The London Earthquakes of 1750’, Cahiers d’histoire mondiale, 11 (1968), 436–51 Rowbotham, Arnold H., Missionary and Mandarin: The Jesuits at the Court of China (New York: Russell & Russell, 1966; orig. publ. 1942) Rubiés, Joan-Pau, ‘The Concept of Cultural Dialogue and the Jesuit Method of Accom­ modation: Between Idolatry and Civilization’, Archivum historicum societatis Iesu, 74 (2005), 237–80; repr. in Joan-Pau Rubiés, Travellers and Cosmographers: Studies in the History of Early Modern Travel and Ethnology (Ashgate: Variorum, 2007) Salmon, J. H. M., ‘Catholic Resistance Theory, Ultramontanism, and The Royalist Response, 1580–1620’, in The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700, ed. by J. H. Burns with the assistance of Mark Goldie, The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991; repr. 2008), pp. 219–53 Sanna, Guglielmo, ‘How Heterodox was Benjamin Hoadly?’, in Religious Identities in Britain, 1660–1832, ed. by William Gibson and Robert G. Ingram (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), pp. 61–79 Scholem, Gershom, Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah (1626–1676) (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973) Scott, Erin, ‘Sallust, Thomas Gordon, and the Constitutional Debates: Following a Rhet­ or­ical Trail’ (unpublished senior thesis, University Honors College at Texas Tech University, 2007) Séguin, J. A. R., A Bibliography of Thomas Gordon, ca. 1692–1750 ( Jersey City: Paxton, 1965) Shear, Adam, ‘William Whiston’s Judeo-Christianity: Millenarianism and Christian Zion­ ism in Early Enlightenment England’, in Philosemitism in History, ed. by Jonathan Karp and Adam Sutcliffe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 93–110 Simon, Robin, Hogarth, France and British Art: The Rise of the Arts in 18th-Century Britain ([London]: Hogarth Arts, 2007) Simonutti, Luisa, ‘Un acteur et témoin du débat sur la tolérance: William Popple, marchand, écrivain et poète de la liberté’, QWERTY, 8 (1998), 267–72 Skinner, Quentin, ‘Classical Liberty and the Coming of the English Civil War’, in Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, ed. by Martin Van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner, 2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), ii: The Values of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe, pp. 9–20 —— , ‘Freedom as the Absence of Arbitrary Power’, in Republicanism and Political Theory, ed. by Cécile Laborde and John Maynor (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), pp. 83–101

598

Bibliography

—— , Hobbes and Republican Liberty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) —— , Liberty Before Liberalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) —— , ‘Machiavelli’s Discorsi and the Pre-Humanist Origins of Republican Ideals’, in Machiavelli and Republicanism, ed. by Gisela Bock, Quentin Skinner, and Maurizio Viroli (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 293–309 —— , ‘The Republican Ideal of Political Liberty’, in Machiavelli and Republicanism, ed. by Gisela Bock, Quentin Skinner, and Maurizio Viroli (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 121–41 Smith, Jonathan Z., Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990) Soll, Jacob, ‘J. G. A. Pocock’s Atlantic Republicanism Thesis Revisited: The Case of John Adams’s Tacitism’, Republics of Letters, 2 (2010), 21–37 —— , Publishing the Prince: History, Reading, and the Birth of Political Criticism (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005) Sommerville, Johann P., ‘Absolutism and Royalism’, in The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700, ed. by J. H. Burns with the assistance of Mark Goldie, The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991; repr. 2008), pp. 347–73 —— , Politics and Ideology in England 1603–1640 (London: Longman, 1986) Sorkin, David, The Religious Enlightenment: Protestants, Jews, and Catholics from London to Vienna (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2008) Speck, William, ‘Whigs and Tories Dim their Glories: English Political Parties under the First Two Georges’, in The Whig Ascendancy: Colloquies on Hanoverian England, ed. by John Cannon (London: Arnold, 1981), pp. 51–70 Spence, Jonathan D., The Chan’s Great Continent: China in Western Minds (London: Norton, 1998) —— , ‘When Minds Met: China and the West in the Seventeenth Century’, 2010 Jefferson Lec­ture [accessed 12 July 2012] Stackelberg, Jürgen von, Tacitus in der Romania: Studien zur literarischen Rezeption des Tacitus in Italien und Frankreich (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1960) Stewart, Alan, The Cradle King: A Life of James VI & I (London: Pimlico, 2004) Stroumsa, Guy G., A New Science: The Discovery of Religion in the Age of Reason (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010) Strunk, Thomas E., ‘Saving the Life of a Foolish Poet: Tacitus on Marcus Lepidus, Thrasea Paetus, and Political Action under the Principate’, Syllecta classica, 21 (2010), 119–39 Stuurman, Siep, Global Equality and Inequality in Enlightenment Thought, Reeks Burgerhartlezingen Werkgroep 18e Eeuw, 3 (Utrecht: Werkgroep 18e Eeuw, 2010) Sullivan, M. G., ‘Rapin, Hume and the Identity of the Historian in Eighteenth Century England’, History of European Ideas 28 (2002), 145–62 Sullivan, Vickie B., Machiavelli, Hobbes, and the Formation of a Liberal Republicanism in England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) —— , ‘Muted and Manifest English Machiavellianism: The Reconciliation of Machia­ vellian Republicanism with Liberalism in Sidney’s “Discourses Concerning Govern­

Bibliography

599

ment” and Trenchard’s and Gordon’s “Cato’s Letters”’, in Machiavelli’s Liberal Repub­ lican Legacy, ed. by Paul A. Rahe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 58–86 Sutcliffe, Adam, and Jonathan Karp, ‘Introduction: A Brief History of Philosemitism’, in Philo­semitism in History, ed. by Jonathan Karp and Adam Sutcliffe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 1–26 Sykes, Norman, ‘Benjamin Hoadley’, in The Social and Political Ideas of Some English Think­ ers of the Augustan Age, ed. by F. J. C. Hearnshaw (London: Harrap, 1928), pp. 112–56 —— , Edmund Gibson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1926) —— , William Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1657–1737, 2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957) Tarantino, Giovanni, ‘Alternative Hierarchies: Manhood and Unbelief in Early Modern Europe, 1660–1750’, in Governing Masculinities in the Early Modern Period: Regulating Selves and Others, ed. by Susan Broomhall and Jacqueline van Gent, Women and Gender in the Early Modern World (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), pp. 209–25 —— , ‘The Books and Times of Anthony Collins, Free-Thinker, Radical Reader and Independent Whig’, in Varieties of Seventeenth- and Early Eighteenth-Century English Radicalism in Context, ed. by Ariel Hessayon and David Finnegan (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), pp. 221–40 —— , ‘Martin Clifford and “A Treatise of Humane Reason” (1674): A Europe-Wide Debate’, in Philosophy and Religion in Enlightenment Britain: New Case Studies (Essays Presented to M. A. Stewart), ed. by Ruth Savage (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 9–28 —— , ‘Le Symbole d’un Laïque: il “catechismo repubblicano” di Thomas Gordon’, Rivista storica italiana, 112.2 (2010), 386-464 Targett, Simon, ‘Government and Ideology during the Age of Whig Supremacy: The Political Argument of Sir Robert Walpole’s Newspaper Propagandists’, The Historical Journal, 37 (1994), 289–317 Thompson, Andrew C., ‘Popery, Politics, and Private Judgement in Early Hanoverian Britain’, The Historical Journal, 45 (2002), 333–56 Toffanin, Giuseppe, Machiavelli e il ‘Tacitismo’: la politica storica al tempo della Controriforma (Napoli: Guida, 1972; orig. publ. Padova: Draghi, 1921) Townend, G. M., ‘Religious Radicalism and Conservatism in the Whig Party under George I: The Repeal of the Occasional Conformity and Schism Acts’, Parliamentary History, 7 (1988), 24–44 Treadwell, Michael, ‘London Printers and Printing Houses in 1705’, Publishing History, 7 (1980), 5–54 —— , ‘London Trade Publishers 1675–1750’, The Library, 6th ser., 4 (1982), 99–134 Trevelyan, W. C., ‘T. Gordon’s History of England’ in ‘Minor Correspondence’, Gentle­ man’s Magazine, 3–4 (December 1843), p. 562 Trevor-Roper, Hugh, ‘Our First Whig Historian: Paul de Rapin-Thoyras’, in Hugh TrevorRoper, From Counter-Reformation to Glorious Revolution (London: Pimlico, 1992), pp. 249–65

600

Bibliography

Tuck, Richard, ‘The “Modern” Theory of Natural Law’, in The Languages of Political Theory in Early Modern Europe, ed. by Anthony Pagden (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 99–119 Urstad, Tone Sundt, Sir Robert’s Walpole’s Poets: The Use of Literature as Pro-Government Propaganda, 1721–1742 (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1999) Van Gelderen, Martin, and Quentin Skinner, eds., Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, 2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) Venturi, Franco, ‘Le avventure del generale Henry Lloyd’, Rivista storica italiana, 91 (1979), 369–433 —— , Saggi sull’Europa illuminista: I. Alberto Radicati di Passerano ([Torino]: Unione Tipografica Editrice Torinese, 2005; orig. publ. Torino: Einaudi, 1954) Vincitorio, Gaetano L., ‘Edmund Burke and Charles Lucas’, Publications of the Modern Language Association, 68 (1953), 1047–55 The Vision of China in the English Literature of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century, ed. by Adrian Hsia (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1998) Volpilhac-Auger, Catherine, Tacite et Montesquieu (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1985) Wall, Ernestine van der, ‘A Precursor of Christ or a Jewish Impostor? Petrus Serrarius and Jean de Labadie on the Jewish Messianic Movement around Sabbatai Sevi’, Pietismus und Neuzeit, 14 (1989), 109–24 Weinbrot, Howard D., ‘Politics, Taste, and National Identity: Some Uses of Tacitism in Eighteenth-Century Britain’, in Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition, ed. by T. J. Luce and A. J. Woodman (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), pp. 168–84 Weston, Corinne Comstock, ‘Diverse Viewpoints on Ancient Constitutionalism’, in The Roots of Liberty: Magna Carta, Ancient Constitution, and the Anglo-American Tradition of the Rule of Law, ed. by Ellis Sandoz (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1993), pp. 309–33 —— , ‘England: Ancient Constitution and Common Law’, in The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700, ed. by J. H. Burns with the assistance of Mark Goldie, The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 374–411 —— , ‘Legal Sovereignty in the Brady Controversy’, Historical Journal, 15 (1972), 409–31 Weststeijn, Thijs, ‘Spinoza Sinicus: An Asian Paragraph in the History of the Radical Enlightenment’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 68 (2007), 537–61 Wiles, R. M., Serial Publication in England Before 1750 (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press, 1957) Willson, David Harris, ‘James I and his Literary Assistants’, Huntington Library Quarterly, 8 (1944), 35–57 Winnifrith, Tom, ‘Latin Historians’, in The Oxford History of Literary Translation in English, ed. by Peter France and Stuart Gillespie, 4 vols to date (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005–), iii: 1660–1790, ed. by Stuart Gillespie and David Hopkins (2005), pp. 281–90 Wolloch, Nathaniel, ‘Cato the Younger in the Enlightenment’, Modern Philology, 106 (2008), 60–82

Bibliography

601

Woodbridge, Homer E., Sir William Temple: The Man and His Work (London: Oxford University Press, 1940) Woolf, D. R., The Idea of History in Early Stuart England (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1990) Worden, Blair, ‘English Republicanism’, in The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700, ed. by J. H. Burns with the assistance of Mark Goldie, The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 443–57 —— , ‘The Revolution of 1688–9 and the English Republican Tradition’, in The AngloDutch Moment: Essays on the Glorious Revolution and its World Impact, ed. by Jonathan I. Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 241–77 Wright, Johnson Kent, ‘Historical Writing in the Enlightenment World’, in The Enlightenment World, ed. by Martin Fitzpatrick and others (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 207–16 Wyss-Giacosa, Paola von, Religionsbilder der frühen Aufklärung: Bernard Picarts Tafeln für die “Cérémonies et coutumes religieuses de tous les peuples du monde” (Wabern: Benteli, 2006) Yeo, Richard, ‘John Locke on Conversation with Friends and Strangers’, Parergon, 26 (2009), 11–37 Young, Brian W., ‘“Scepticism in Excess”: Gibbon and Eighteenth-Century Christianity’, The Historical Journal, 41 (1998), 179–99 Zagorin, Perez, ‘Republicanisms’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 11 (2003), 701–14 Zook, Melinda, Radical Whigs and Conspiratorial Politics in Late Stuart England (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999) —— , ‘The Restoration Remembered: The First Whigs and the Making of their History’, Seventeenth Century, 17 (2002), 213–34 Zuckert, Michael P., Natural Rights and the New Republicanism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994) Zurbuchen, Simone, ‘Republicanism and Toleration’, in Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, ed. by Martin Van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner, 2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), ii: The Values of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe, pp. 47–71 Zwicker, Steven N. and David Bywaters, ‘Politics and Translation: The English Tacitus of 1698’, Huntington Library Quarterly, 52 (1989), 319–46

Index

An italicized n is used to denote footnote references where the page number is a Roman numeral. Aberdeen, George Gordon, first earl of: 5 absolution, doctrine of: 161–63, 348, 385 Adams, John: 99 Addison, Joseph: 6n15, 22 Adela, countess of Blois: 221 Adeliza of Leuven, queen of England, second wife of Henry I: 122n136, 214, 234 Adrian IV, pope: 123, 291n22 Aelian: xiv Agincourt, Battle of (1415): 490n19 Alamos de Barrientos, Baltasar: 86n6 Alberoni, Cardinal: 7, 9 Albigenses/Cathars: 339, 369 Alexander II, pope: 149n4 Alexander III, pope: 123, 259n7, 272, 274–75, 278, 280n15, 288–90, 291n22 Alexander IV, pope: 410n40 Alexander the Great: 165, 574 Alexander, king of Scotland: 385–86 Alfieri, Vittorio: xxin22 Alfonso (Alphonso) VII, king of Castile: 314 Alfonso (Alphonso) X, king of Castile: 407n39 Alfred, bishop of York: 141n1 Alnwick, Battle of (1093): 178n6 Alton, Treaty of (1101): 198n4 Alys (Alice) of France, daughter of Louis VII: 311, 314, 319n38, 322–24, 326 America influence of Gordon in: xxii: 17, 23–26, 55n15, 99 Rapin-Thoyras’s Histoire d’Angleterre in: 115

religiously motivated immigration to: 565 Spanish conquests in: 88n17, 94n40, 133, 166–67 Virginia, colony of: 540n35, 565 Ammirato, Scipione: 86n6 ‘An Analogy Between Ancient Heathen­ ism and Modern Priestcraft’ (Trenchard, 1720): 67n36 Anderson, Paul Bunyan: 57n16 Andrew[e]s, Lancelot, bishop of Chichester, Ely, and Winchester: 514 Anglican Church see religion and the church Anjou, Fulk, count of: 208n11, 316–17 Anjou, Geoffrey Plantagenet, fifth count of: 123, 217, 221, 226, 242, 244, 317 Anne, queen of England: xviin12, 12–13, 14, 108, 114 Anne of Denmark, queen of England, wife of James I: 519 Anonimiana (1700): 31n62 Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury: 120, 121, 178–87, 195, 196, 199–202, 208, 209, 213 Anson, George: 49n2 anti-clericalism see religion and the church antitrinitarianism: 63n24, 82 An Apology for the Danger of the Church (Gordon, 1719): 9–10, 81n64 An Apology for the Oath of Allegiance ( James I, 1607/8): 552–53 An Appeal to the Unprejudiced (attrib. Gordon, 1739): 44n91 Appleby, Joyce: 26

604

Archaeological Britannica (Lhwyd, 1707): 113 Aremberg, Charles, princely count of: 516, 517 Argens, Jean-Baptiste de Boyer d’: 49, 61n21, 75n51 An Argument Shewing that a Standing Army is Inconsistent with a Free Government (Trenchard, 1697): 11 Argumentum Anti-Normannicum (Cooke, 1682): 107 Argyll, Archibald Campbell, third duke of: 95n46 Argyll, John Campbell, second duke of: 53, 89, 95n46 Arianism: xiii, 30, 40, 64 Ariosto, Ludovico: 7 Aristotle and Aristotelianism: xxiin28, 21, 42 Arminians, writings of James I against: 130n173, 513 Arnall (Arnold), William: 33n68, 37 Arnauld, Antoine: 61n21 Arques, Helias of Saint-Saëns, count of: 208n11 Arsace, Mithridates’s letter to: 98 Artevelde, Jacob van ( James D’Arteville), Brewer of Ghent: 33n67, 128, 484–86 Arthur, duke of Britanny: 319 ‘Articles of Abuses’ (Articuli Cleri): 538–39 assassinations of Edward II: 466, 471 of Gaveston: 457–59 of Henry IV of France: 546 of Thomas Becket: 282–86, 290n21 Atahualpa (Ataliba), Inca ruler: 166, 167n12 atheism, religious: 82–83 Atterbury, Francis, bishop of Rochester: 47n98, 108–09, 123n143 Atterbury plot: 51n5 Atwood, William: 108 Augustus, king of Poland: 481 Augustus Caesar, Roman emperor:  163–64, 506 Avranches, Compromise of (1172): 304–05 Bacon, Sir Francis: 20, 99, 554 Bacon, Nathaniel: 114n111 Badlesmere, Bartholomew, first Lord: 463n25 Bailyn, Bernard: 23 Bajazet: 414

INDEX balance of powers: 95, 96 Bal[l]iol, Edward, king of Scots: 482, 483n11 Bal[l]iol, John, king of Scots: 483n11 Bancroft, Richard, archbishop of Canterbury: 131n175, 132, 520n25, 523, 538–39, 565, 567 Bannockburn, Battle of (1314): 459n15 Barbeyrac, Jean: xx, 41, 42 bards, Irish: 298–99 Barron, Richard: 44, 46–47n97 Barry, Heather E.: 23 Barry, Paul de: 74 Basilikon Doron ( James I, 1598): 130n173, 510n11, 511–12 The Battle of the Books (Swift, 1704):  111n99, 112 Baxter, Richard: xviiin15, 8 Bayle, Pierre and Sinophilia: 49, 53–55, 57n16, 59n20, 60, 75n52 and writings of Gordon: xix, xxiv,  30–31, 41 Commentaire philosophique (1686): 75n52 Japan, entry in Dictionnaire historique et critique (1704): 73–76 on Islam: 63 Becket, Thomas (Saint), archbishop of Canterbury: 123–24, 125n149, 249–50, 251n1, 253–90, 303–05, 309, 312–14, 327 The Bee, periodical: 52 Bellamy, Daniel, the Elder: 60n20 Bellarmine, Cardinal Robert: 513, 514n15, 552, 553n50 Benario, Herbert W.: 78n60 Benedict XII, pope: 186n10, 484n14 Bentley, Richard: 111n99 Berengaria of Navarre, queen of England, wife of Richard I: 311n32 Berengarius of Tours and Berengarians: 287n18 Bergier, Nicolas-Silvestre: 61 Berkeley, George: 46n97 Berman, David: 83 Bernard, Jean Frédéric: 58, 59, 62, 67n36, 68 Bersted, Stephen, bishop of Chichester: 438n50 Bibliothèque universelle et historique (Le Clerc, 1688): 65

INDEX Bigod, Hugh: 223n3 Birch, Thomas: 59n20 Black Act (1723): 29 Blackett, Julia: xxiii: 140 Blackett, Sir William: 35, 140 Blackwell, George: 553n50 Blackwood, Adam: 131, 567 Blanche of Castile, queen and regent of France: 338, 339n6, 401n38 Blois, Theobald, earl of: 226 Blund, John: 342n8 Blunt, John: 18 Bob-Lynn against Franck-Lynn (1732): 36 Boccalini, Traiano: 86–87n8 Bohon, Josceline de, bishop of Salisbury: 279n15 Bohun, Humphrey III de: 309 Bolingbroke, Henry St John, viscount: 29, 52, 67n35, 99, 103, 109–10, 112 Boniface VIII, pope: 186n10, 449n54 Boniface of Savoy, archbishop of Canterbury: 380 Boulanger, Nicolas Antoine: 83 Bouverie, Jacob de: xvn9 Boyle, Robert: 64n29 Brady, Robert: 107–08, 109, 110, 116, 123n139, 132n178 Brehon Law: 298 Brémule, Battle of (1119): 208n11, 211n13 Brétigny, Treaty of (1360): 128, 492 Brewer of Ghent, Jacob van Artevelde ( James D’Arteville): 33n67, 128, 484–86 Britannia (Camden, 1695 and 1722): 113 British Journal: xixn18, xxii, 20, 30, 33n68, 37 Brookes, Richard: 68n38 Bruges, Treaty of (1375): 496n25 Bruno, Giordano: 62, 63n23 Buchanan, George: 31, 114, 130, 131n175, 512n13, 514 Buckhurst, Thomas Sackville, Lord: 517 Buckingham, George Villiers, first duke of: 110, 508–9 Buddhism: 58, 66, 68–69, 71, 76 Budgell, Eustace: 52 Bullock, J. M.: xxiii–xxiv, 4, 5n12 Bunyan, John: xviiin15 Burgess, Daniel: 17 Burgess, Glenn: 105n78 Burke, Edmund: 3

605

Burke, Peter: xxiiin31 Burnet, Gilbert: 113, 287, 552 Burtt, Shelley: 25, 28–29 Bury, Arthur: 63n2 Caballero, Antonio a Santa Maria, China missionary: 65n31 Cadière, Catherine: 70n42 Caius Manlius: 97 Calais, siege of (1346–47): 488, 489 Calgacus: 78, 93 Calixtus II. pope: 212–13 Calvinists: 56, 130n173, 131, 513, 520, 534, 566 Camden, William: 105, 113 Campbell, Archibald, rev.: xiv Carr, Robert, earl of Somerset, viscount Rochester: 508, 563–64 Carteret, John, Lord: 88–89 Catesby, Robert: 542n38, 543–45 Catholicism see Roman Catholicism Catiline conspiracies: 20, 42, 67n35, 85, 94, 97, 98n54–55, 112 Cato (Addison, 1713): 22 Cato Street Conspiracy (1820): 101n64 Cato the Younger: 22, 92n33 Cato’s Letters (Gordon and Trenchard, 1720–23, and later edns): 20–30 and History of England: 101, 129n168 and Sinophilia: 60n21, 77, 78n58, 87n11–12 on doctrine of necessity: 18n35 on Parliamentary representation: 33 on Peerage Bill: 14 Pocock on: xxivn33 publication of: 20, 34 significance and influence of: xxi, xxii, xxiii Walpole’s reaction to: 35 Cave, Edward: 52, 68n38 celibacy, clerical: 199–201, 208, 209–10, 215–16 Cérémonies et coutumes religieuses de tous les peuples du monde (ed. Bernard, 1723–37, 1733–43; Engl. trans. Prevost, 1731; Du Bosc, 1733–39): 58–60, 62, 67n36, 68 Challe, Robert: 75n51 Champion, Justin: 13 Chandos, Sir John: 494

606

The Character of an Independent Whig (Gordon, 1719): 5n11, 8n18, 11, 13, 15 The Characters of Two Independent Whigs (1720): 3 Charity Schools: 30 Charles I, king of England: 110, 114, 519, 522, 544 Charles IV, king of France: 477n7 Charles V, king of France: 128, 494n24, 495 Charles XII, king of Sweden: 481 Charles of Anjou: 434 Chester, earls of Hugh d’Avranches, second: 189 Ranulf de Blondeville: 338, 340, 341, 347 Chesterfield, Philip Dormer Stanhope, earl of: 52 China, Confucianism, and Sinophilia: 49–84 admiration for China in the eighteenth century: 49–53 and the Bible: 51n6 cross-cultural evaluations of: 58–60 deist’s view of: xi, xxiv, 54–55, 60, 82–83 diaries and correspondence of Easterners, as literary genre: 55–57 Gordon’s ‘religious atheism’ and: 82–83 in Cato’s Letters (Gordon and Trenchard, 1720–23): 77, 78n58 in A Collection of Papers (Gordon, 1748): 66–70, 72n47 in ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’ (Gordon, 1728): 77–79 in An Examination of the Facts and Reasonings in the Lord Bishop of Chichester’s Sermon (Gordon, 1732): 60, 82–83, 84n75 in ‘The Hierarchy of Rome, how like that of Japan […]’, Independent Whig (Gordon and Trenchard, 1735): 73–77 in History of England (Gordon, unfin­ ished draft): xi, 73, 76n54, 348 in ‘Mutual Bitterness and Persecution Amongst Christians […]’, Inde­pen­dent Whig (Gordon and Trenchard): 55–57 in ‘Of the Strange Force of Education’, Independent Whig (Gordon and Trenchard): 49, 73n48 in ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’ (Gordon, 1744): 50–51, 61n21, 67n35, 71n46, 72n47, 78n58

INDEX in ‘The Teachers of All Sects […]’, Inde­pen­dent Whig (Gordon and Trenchard): 70–73 in A True Account of a Revelation […] (1719) from A Collection of Tracts by the late John Trenchard, Esq., and Thomas Gordon, Esq. (1751): 79–82 paganism, Gordon on: 49, 55, 56, 66–69 Islam, compared with representations of: 61–65 Jesuits and: xxiv, 49, 51n6, 52n7, 57n16, 60–61n21, 65n31 negative shift in Western attitudes towards: 49–50n2 political/governmental ‘arguments from the Chinese’: 50–53, 77–79, 83–84 religious toleration, ‘arguments from the Chinese’ regarding: 50–58, 66, 72–77 Roman Catholicism and: xi, 56, 58n19, 59, 64–65n29, 66–70, 72, 73–74 The Chinese Orphan (Hatchett, 1741): 52–53 Cholmondeley, George, third earl of: 94 Christianity as Old as the Creation (Tindal, 1730): 54, 66n35 Christianity not Mysterious (Toland, 1696): 54 Chung-yung: 61n21 the church see religion and the church Church Courts Bill: 38 Church Rates and Repairs Bill: 38 Churchill, Awsham and John: 71 Cicero: xx, 20n41, 31, 42, 46n97, 66–67n35, 94, 483n13 Civil War, English: 103, 117 Cladera, Cristóbal: 101 Clare, Margaret de, wife of Lord Badlesmere: 463n25 Clare, Margaret de, countess of Cornwall, daughter of Gilbert de Clare: 454n2 Clarence, Lionel of Antwerp, son of Edward III, duke of: 297, 478(a) Clarendon, Constitutions of: 123, 261–63, 268, 271, 272, 304–05, 313–14 Claudius, Roman emperor: 514 Cleland, John: 44n93 Clement III, antipope: 120, 173n2 Clifford, Martin: 46n97, 65 Clifford, Rosamond: 306

INDEX climate, eighteenth-century theories on influence of: 89 Clodius (Publius Clodius Pulcher): 110 Cnute, Danish king: 113n110 Cobham, Henry Brooke, Lord: 517, 518n24, 519 Cobham, John Oldcastle, Lord: xviii, 11, 139–40 Coke, Sir Edward: 105: 518–19 A Collection of Papers (Gordon, 1748): 66–70, 72n47 A Collection of Tracts by the late John Trenchard, Esq., and Thomas Gordon, Esq. (posthumous, 1751): xvin11, 44, 79, Collins, Anthony at Rainbow Coffee House: xxn21 death and burial of: 38–39n82 A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729): xviiin17 A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion (1724): xvi, 54–55n14, 67n35 Discourse on Free-Thinking (1713): 15, 63n23, 112 Gordon and: xvi Independent Whig and: 17, 18 library catalogue of: 44n93, 58, 62, 71n45, 76n55, 79 Locke and: 58 manuscripts of: 39n77 Mussard and: 67n36 on analogical interpretation: 81n65 on liberty: 18 portrait of: 35n72 Radicati on: 34 Rapin-Thoyras and: 115n114 Sinophilia and: 49, 53n11, 58, 60, 61n21, 71n45 Swift’s parody of: 112 Collins, Elizabeth: 39n77 colonial America see America Colonna, Cardinal Giovanni, archbishop of Messina: 415 Commentaire philosophique (Bayle, 1686): 75n52 A Compleat History of the Late Septennial Parliament (Gordon, 1722): 14 Complete History of England (Brady, 1685): 108

607

Condé, prince of: 352 Confucianism see China, Confucianism, and Sinophilia Confucius Sinarum Philosophus (ed. Couplet, 1687): 60–61n21, 65, 84 Congreve, William: 6n15 conquest, Gordon’s reflections on: 88n17, 117–18, 123–24, 127–28, 141–48, 155–60, 165–68, 480–83 conscience, freedom of: 89 Considerations Offered Upon the Approaching Peace […] (Gordon and Trenchard, 1720): 15 The Conspirators, or, the Case of Catiline (Gordon, 1721): 20–21, 112 Constance of Castile: 496n25 Constancin, Father: 52n7 Constantine I the Great, Roman emperor: 88 constitution and Cabinet government: 25 and Cato’s Letters: 26, 27 and Peerage Bill: 14 and republicanism: 33n68, 90n27 and rule of law: xxiin28, 48 and Sinophilia: 51, 52, 73, 78 and voting rights: 33n68 antiquity of: 21, 48, 73, 103, 104–11, 113n110, 116 ecclesiastical role in: 109 Tacitus as mentor of constitutional balance: 78 Toland on reform of: 12 of United States: 25 Convocation, power to assemble: 108–09 Cook, Elizabeth: 23 Cooke, Edward: 107 A Cordial for Low Spirits (Gordon, post­ humous, 1751): 44 Corn-Cutter’s Journal: 37 Cornwall, Richard, earl of (brother of Henry III, later king of the Romans): 351–52, 360–61, 371, 401, 424, 428, 432, 433, 438 Corporation Act (1661): 12, 39 Cosby, William: 23, 24 Cotta the Consul: 97n52 A Counterblast to Tobacco ( James I, 1604): 130n173, 510n11, 513, 540 Couplet, Philippe: 60–61n21, 84

608

Courteville, Ralph: 37 Cowell, John: 131, 567, 569n72, 574 Cox, Robert: xviiin16, 140 The Craftsman, Bolingbroke’s weekly paper: 29, 52, 103, 109, 131 The Craftsmen (Gordon, 1720): 16, 17 Crasset, Jean: 74 creation ex nihilo: xxivn33 Crécy, Battle of (1346): 487, 490n19 Creed of an Independent Whig (Gordon, 1720): 14 Cremutius Cordius: 91–92n28 Croft-Murray, Edward: 35n72 Cromwell, Oliver: 103, 140, 546 Crug Mawr, Battle of (1136): 226n5 Crusades and composition of Gordon’s History of England: 120, 124 and Henry II: 253n4, 304, 313, 316–17, 320–22, 323, 324, 326 and Henry III: 330n1, 365, 374n25, 394–95, 396–98, 402–03, 407, 411n41, 412 and Stephen of Blois: 244 and William II: 187–89 Cuoco, Vicenzo: xxin22 Curll, Edmund: xiv–xv, xvii, 111n99 Daemonology ( James I, 1597): 130n173, 510–11 Dafydd (David), prince of Wales: 369n21, 380–81 Daily Courant: 37 Daily Gazetteer: 37, 80n62 Dalai Lama: 71–72 D’Alembert, Jean le Rond: xx, 54 Danegeld (Dane-Gilt): 146n2, 158, 224 Daniel, Samuel: 111 Darcy, Sir Edward: 518 Darnley, Henry, Lord: 513n14 Daudé, Pierre: xx, 101 David I, king of Scotland: 230 David II, king of Scotland: 472n4, 482–83, 488–89, 493 De animalibus (Aelian, ed. Gronovius, 1744): xiv de Burgh, Elizabeth: 297n24 de Burgh, Hubert: 125, 330n1, 331–33, 335, 336, 340, 345–47, 349, 350–52, 364n14, 374

INDEX De iure regni apud Scotos (Buchanan, 1579): 114, 512 de la Court, John: 32 de la Court, Pieter: 31–32 de La Houssaye, Amelot: 87n10 de la Loubère, Simon: 78n58 de la Motte, Charles: 115n114 de la Roche, Michel: 41 de Raley or Ralegh (deRale, De la Rale), William, bishop of Norwich: 367–68 De religione Mohammedica (Reeland, 1705): 62 De Retz, Cardinal: xi de Witt, John: 31 Declaration of Indulgence (1687): 64n29 A Dedication to a great man […] (Gordon, 1718): 6 Defoe, Daniel: xv, 6n15 deism: xvi, 2, 40, 54–55, 60, 63, 82–83 Deism Revealed (Skelton, 1749): 32 Denmark and Danes: 56, 113n110, 147, 153n5, 167, 224, 481 Dermot, king of Leinster: 293–94 Des Maizeaux, Pierre: xxn21, 39n77, 76, 115n114 des Rivaux (de Rivaulx), Peter: 330n1, 364, 365, 366 des Roches, Peter, bishop of Winchester: 125n151, 330n1, 331–33, 335, 345–47, 350, 352–53, 360, 362, 363, 364, 372 Description de la Chine (du Halde, 1735): 52, 68n38 Despenser (Spencer), Hugh the Elder and Younger: 127, 461–65, 469, 476–77 Dettingen, Battle of (1743): 43n91 Devonshire, Robert de Rivers, earl of: 225–26 Dialogue Between Monsieur Jurieu, and a Burgomaster of Rotterdam (Gordon, 1740): xviii–xix, 31, 55 Dickinson, John: 99 Dictionnaire de Theologie (1788–90): 61 Dictionnaire historique et critique (Bayle, 1704): 73–76 Diderot, Denis: xx, xxin22, 83 Digby, Sir Everard: 542n38, 545, 552 Disabling Act (1678): 509n8 Discorsi (Machiavelli, 1513–21): 20n41, 96n50

INDEX A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (Collins, 1729): xviiin17 A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion (Collins, 1724): xvi, 54–55n14, 67n35 A Discourse of Humane Reason (Popple, 1690): 65 A Discourse on Free-Thinking (Collins, 1713): 15, 112 Discourses on the Miracles of Our Saviour (Woolston, 1729): xvi The Discovery of a World in the Moone (Wilkins, 1638): 7 Dissertatio de structura et motu musculari (Stuart): xiv Divine Legation of Moses (Warburton, 1737–41): xxivn33 divine right of kings: 80n62, 114n113, 129–30, 129n170, 502, 515, 522, 556, 562, 567, 574–75 Dodgson, Edward S.: 4n5 Dodington, George Bubb: 67n35, 94 Domesday Book: 119n126, 153–54, 194n2 Domitian, Roman emperor: 183 Douglas, James: xiv Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan: xxn20 Dryden, John: 87n10 Du Bosc, Claude: 59–60n20 du Guesclin, Bertrand: 494n24, 495 du Halde, Jean-Baptiste: 52, 53n9, 68, 69, 80n62 Du Perron, Cardinal: 513, 514n15 Du royaume de Siam (de la Loubère, 1691): 78n58 Duckett, George: 5 Dugdale, Sir William: 106–07 Dunciad (Pope, 1728): 35n72 Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury: 274 Dupplin, Battle of (1332): 483n11 Dupré, James: 67n36 Durand, David: 115n114 Durham, second Treaty of (1139): 230n9 Dutch see Netherlands earthquakes, London (1750): xix–xx, 45–48, 91 ecclesiastical courts ‘Articles of Abuses’ (Articuli Cleri): 538–39

609

Becket controversy over: 123–24, 125n149, 249–50, 251n1, 253–90, 303–05, 309, 312–14, 327 High Commission Court: 571–72 ecclesiastical issues see religion and the church Echard, Laurence: 114 Edgar, Saxon king: 105n79 Edgar Ætheling: 176n4, 195, 207 education, Gordon in ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’ on: 90 Edward I, king of England: 126, 296, 401, 407, 418, 423, 424, 431, 433, 435, 438–39, 441–43, 447, 449, 453–54 Edward II, king of England: 98, 127, 128n163, 129n167, 296, 453–67, 471, 473, 479, 500 Edward III, king of England: 109, 127–29, 142, 296, 463, 465, 467, 469–500 Edward IV, king of England: 296, 297, 478(a) Edward the Black Prince, son of Edward III: 127, 297n24, 487, 490–91, 494–96 Edward the Confessor, Saxon king, and laws: 105–06, 107n87, 117, 120, 123, 129n168, 141n1, 252, 311 effeminacy, eighteenth-century concepts of: 128n163 Eleanor of Aquitaine, queen of England, wife of Henry II, 244, 306, 308, 315, 319n38 Eleanor of Castile queen of England, wife of Edward I: 407, 454n2 Eleanor of England, countess of Pembroke: 373 Eleanor of Provence, queen of England, wife of Henry III: 365, 438–39 Elizabeth I, queen of England: 110, 128n163, 129, 300, 501, 503–04, 506, 507–08, 516, 528, 540, 541, 561, 563, 565, 566 Elizabeth of York, queen of England, daughter of Edward IV, wife of Henry VII: 528n30 Elizabeth, daughter of James I: 519, 542n48, 544 Encyclopédie (ed. Diderot and D’Alembert, 1751–72): 54, 76 Encyclopédie méthodique (ed. Panckoucke): 61

610

England see History of England (Gordon); see also names of specific monarchs and events English and Scottish crowns, union of: 131n174, 529–30, 535, 550, 554–63 ‘enthusiasm’, religious: 305, 313, 320 episcopacy, James I’s support for: 503, 520, 522, 539 Epistola de tolerantia (Letter Concerning Toleration; Locke, 1689): 53–54, 64 Essay on Charity Schools (Mandeville, 1723): 30 Essay on Government (Gordon, 1747): 42–43 An Essay Towards Restoring the True Text of the Old Testament (Whiston, 1722): xvin10 Essays against Popery, Slavery and Arbitrary Power (Gordon, undated miscellany): 16, 44, 103 Essex, Robert Devereux, second earl of: 505, 607–08 Euripides: 483 Eustace, son of Stephen of Blois: 227, 232, 239, 241, 243, 244–46 Evesham, Battle of (1265): 126, 438n50, 442n52 An Examination of the Facts and Reasonings in the Lord Bishop of Chichester’s Sermon (Gordon, 1732): xxivn33, 39–40, 47n98, 60n21, 82–83, 84n75 excise controversy (1733): 38 Exclusion Crisis (1679): 107, 122n139 Fabius Maximus: 492 Fable of the Bees (Mandeville, 1714): 5n6, 30 Fan Cunzhong (T. C. Fan): 52n7 Fawkes, Guy: 542n38, 544 Ferdinand VII, king of Spain: 101n64 feudal law and English political institutions: 104–08 Fielding, Henry: 6n15 Filmer, Henry: 8, 107 First Barons’ War (1215–1217): 124n148, 329n1, 354n12 Fitz Stephen, Robert: 294 Fitz-Urze, Reginald: 283 Flambard (Flambart), Ranulph or Ralph, bishop of Durham: 194 Flèche, count de: 190 Fletcher, Andrew: 11

INDEX Flying-Post: 37 Fog’s Weekly Journal: 52 Foliot, Gilbert, bishop of London: 273, 276n12, 279n15, 281, 282 Forest Law: 154n7 Fortescue, Sir John: 536 Four Treatises Concerning the Doctrines, Disci­pline and Worship of the Mahometans (1712), 62 France and Becket controversy: 261n8, 265–66, 270, 271, 273–76, 289, 305 English royal holdings in: 252, 482 Salic law in: 482n10 wars with England: 151–52, 210–13, 215, 245, 294, 296, 308–10, 318–19, 322–25, 329, 338–41, 381–82, 483–92, 495–96 Francis, Lord Bacon [...] (Gordon, 1721): 20 Franklin, Benjamin: 55n15 Fraser, Thomas: 4n5 Frederic, prince of Wales: 88, 94 Frederick, king of Denmark: 481 Frederick I Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor: 272, 288n19 Frederick II the Great, Holy Roman Emperor: 330n1, 366n18, 374, 377, 388n34, 410n40 Free Briton, periodical: 28n58, 37 Freedom see liberty, Gordon on; see also specific freedoms The Freethinker, periodical: 82 freethinking and freethinkers: ix, xivn2, xvi, 10, 58, 62, 76, 81n64, 112 Freke, William: 63n24 Fréret, Nicolas: 49, 60, 90n27 Galba, Roman emperor: 93 Garnet, Henry: 545, 551 Gaucelme de Jean, Cardinal: 461n20 Gaveston, Arnold de: 454n1 Gaveston, Piers or Perrot: 110, 127, 454–59, 462, 469 Gemelli-Careri, Gian Francesco: 70–71 General History of England (Tyrrell, 1696–1704): 105n79, 107n86, 113, 278(a) Gentleman’s Magazine: 36n77, 52, 59–60n20, 140

INDEX Geoffrey (Geofry), duke of Britanny, son of Henry II: 252, 306n31, 307, 308, 314–15, 317n37, 318, 319 Geoffrey [le] Baker: 466n34 geography, eighteenth-century theories on influence of: 89 George I, king of England: 9, 12, 19 George II, king of England: 43n91, 52 Ger[h]ard and German followers in England: 286–87 Geuna, Marco: xxiin28 Gibbon, Edward: 86, 99 Gibson, Edmund, bishop of London: 13, 34, 37–40, 73, 106n83, 108–10, 113 Gilbert de Tunbridge: 178 Girard, Jean-Baptiste : 70n42 Glorious Revolution (1688): 11, 110 Glossarium Archaiologicum (Spelman, ed. Dugdale, 1664): 106 Gloucester, Gilbert de Clare, seventh earl of: 438n50, 441, 444, 449, 454n2 Gloucester, Robert Fitzroy, first earl of: 228, 230, 236, 240, 241, 243 Godfrey I of Leuven, duke of Lower Lotharingia: 122n136 Godfrey of Bouillon (Boulogne): 188 Godwin, William: 101 Goldie, Mark: 120n129 ‘Good Parliament’ (1376): 496n26, 499 Goodwin, Francis, bishop of Hereford: 7 Goodwin, Sir Francis: 536 Gordon, Alexander (antiquarian and opera singer): 35n72 Gordon, Sir Alexander, of Culvennan: 4 Gordon, Thomas as ‘religious atheist’: 82–83 background, family, and education: 3–6, 35 death of: 4n5, 6, 139 financial situation of: 34–36 on translation: 78n60 physical description of: 35 pseudonyms used by Gordon: xx, 16, 57n16 reform programme of Sunderland/ Stanhope ministry and: 12–15 significance of: xxiii–xxiv Sinophilia of: 49–84; see also China, Confucianism, and Sinophilia translations of: xx, 41–42; see also Gordon, Thomas, translations of

611

Walpole sinecure: xxiii: 36–37 writings of: xiii–xxiv, 6–48; see also Gordon, Thomas, writings of Gordon, Thomas, son: 5, 6n13 Gordon, Thomas, and John Trenchard, writings of A Collection of Tracts by the late John Trenchard, Esq., and Thomas Gordon, Esq. (posthumous, 1751): xvin11, 44, 79, Considerations Offered Upon the Approaching Peace […]: 15 see also Cato’s Letters; Independent Whig Gordon, Thomas, translations of: xx, 41–42 and History of England (Gordon, unfinished draft): 34n71, 90n26, 96n50, 97n51, 98, 102n69, 103, 132Cicero: xx, 42, 67n35 French and Spanish translations of Gordon’s editions: 100–101 Gordon on art of translation: 78n60 popularity and influence of: 85, 99–101 Pufendorf ’s The Spirit of the Ecclesiasticks of All Sects and Ages: xx, 41 quality and critical reception of: 86, 91, 94n41, 99 Sallust, The Works (1744): xvii–xviiin15, xx, 31n62, 42, 75n51, 78n60, 82n66, 94, 97–99, 101–02, 111n99 Tacitus, The Works (1728–31): xi, xx, xxin22, xxivn33, 3, 34n71, 42, 53, 85–86, 91–93, 103 Gordon, Thomas, writings of: xiii–xxiv, 6–48 An Apology for the Danger of the Church (1719): 9–10, 81n64 An Appeal to the Unprejudiced (attrib., 1739): 44n91 as pamphleteer: xiii–xx, 6, 9–12, 39–41 The Character of an Independent Whig (1719): 5n11, 8n18, 11, 13, 15 A Collection of Papers (1748), 66–70, 72n47 A Compleat History of the Late Septennial Parliament (1722): 14 The Conspirators, or, the Case of Catiline (1721): 20–21, 112 A Cordial for Low Spirits (posthumous, 1751): 44 The Craftsmen (1720): 16, 17 Creed of an Independent Whig (1720): 14

612

A Dedication to a great man […] (1718): 6 Dialogue Between Monsieur Jurieu, and a Burgomaster of Rotterdam (1740): xviii–xix, 31, 55 early literary career: 6–8 Essay on Government (1747): 42–43 Essays against Popery, Slavery and Arbitrary Power (undated miscellany): 16, 44, 103 An Examination of the Facts and Reasonings in the Lord Bishop of Chichester’s Sermon (1732): xxivn33, 39–40, 47n98, 60n21, 82–83, 84n75 final works: 43–48 Francis, Lord Bacon […] (1721): 20 The Humourist (1720/1724–1725): 4, 7–8 influence of Mandeville, Bayle, and Dutch republicans on: 30–32 A Letter of Consolation and Counsel to the Good People of England (1750): xix–xx, 45–48, 64n27, 91n31 Letter to a Gentleman in Edinburgh (1732): 16 Letter to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury proving that His Grace cannot be the author of the Letter: 10 A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Codex (1734): 38 A Modest Apology for Parson Alberoni (1718–19): 9 ‘A New Catechism for the Fine Ladies […]’ (1740): xiii Political Discourses ‘Discourses upon Tacitus’ (1728): xi, xx–xxi, xxivn33, 11n25, 22n43, 31n62, 77–79, 85n1, 86–88, 90n26–27, 92n34, 93, 96n50, 100–101, 128n163, 129n168, 133, 481 ‘Discourses upon the History of Tacitus’ (1731): xx–xxi, 32n67, 85n3, 88–90, 100–101, 103, 114n111, 120n131, 129n167, 450 ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’ (1744): xviiin15: xx–xxi, xxn21, 32n67, 50–51, 61n21, 67n35, 71n46, 72n47, 78n58, 95–97, 100–101, 129n167, 133 political philosophy of: 24–34 political writings: xx–xxiii, 42–43;

INDEX see also politics and government Priestianity (1720): 11–12 pseudonyms used by Gordon: xx, 16, 57n16 on religion: xi, xiii–xx, xxii, 8–12, 37–41, 47–48; see also religion and the church republicanism of: xxii, xxiii, 24–34, 83–84, 99 Ruah Kritikon: A Short Comment Upon the Revelation of Jeremiah Van Husen (1720): 81n64 A Sermon Preached before the Learned Society of Lincoln’s Inn on January 30. 1732 […] by a Layman (1733): 16 Three Political Letters to a Noble Lord concerning Liberty and the Constitution (1721): 21 The True Crisis (1730): 14, 32n67, 105n79 The Tryal of William Whiston […] (1734/1739/1740): xiii–xvii, 40–41, 64, 73 Upon Persecution and the Natural Ill Tendency of Power in the Clergy, occasioned by the Trial and tragical death of Lord Cobham (unpublished): xviii, 11, 139–40 Vindication of the Quakers (1732): 40 Warning to the Whigs (1744): 32–33n67, 43–44n91, 86n24 see also History of England; Independent Whig Gordon, William: 5 Gospel of Barnabas: 63n24 Gowrie, John Ruthven, third earl of: 548n45 Gowrie’s Conspiracy (1600): 548 Grant, Richard le, archbishop of Canterbury: 337n4 Great Charter see Magna C[h]arta or Great Charter Grecian Coffee House, London: 15 Green, John (Bradock Mead): 68n38 Greenberg, Janelle: 105 Gregory VII, pope: 149n4, 187n11 Gregory IX, pope: 337n4, 342n8, 370n22, 374n25, 379 Griffiths, Ralph: 44n93, 47n98 Grignion, Charles: 59n20 Grimm, Friedrich Melchior: xx Gronovius, Abraham: xiv

INDEX Grosseteste, Robert, bishop of Lincoln: 391 Grotius, Hugo: 42, 43, 564n68 The Grub Street Journal: 60n20 Gruffydd (Griffin) ap Llywelyn, Welsh prince: 369, 380–81, 385–87, 416n43 Gunn, W.: xxiiin31, 24 Gunpowder Plot (1605): 131n174, 250, 542–52 Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden: 501 Guthrie, William: 36–37n77, 68n38 Guy de Lusignan: 320 Guy, John: 105n78 Hakluyt, Richard: 71n45 Hamilton, Andrew: 23 Hamowy, Ronald: 26 Hampton Court Conference (1604): 131, 520–22 Hardwicke, Philip Yorke, Lord Chief Justice, first earl of (formerly Sir Philip Yorke): 38n82, 39 Hare, Bishop Francis: 39 Harleian Voyages: 71n45 Harold Godwinson, king of England: 107n87, 141n1, 146, 195n3 Harrington, James: 8, 25, 26, 84n74, 101 Hatchett, William: 52–53 Hearne, Thomas: 112 Helvidius Priscus: 92n34 Henley, John: 37 Henry I, king of England: 120–22, 144, 175, 190, 193–220, 221–23, 229n8 Henry II Plantagenet, king of England: 122n136, 123–24, 125n149, 217–18, 243–46, 249–327 at tomb of Thomas Beckett: 305, 309–10, 312–13 Henry III, king of England: 107, 108, 109, 114n110, 124–26, 296, 329–451 Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor: 209 Henry IV, king of England: 296 Henry IV, king of France: 501, 512–13, 546, 566, 572–73 Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor: 122n136, 209n12 Henry V, king of England: 109, 296 Henry VI, king of England: 110, 296 Henry VII, king of England: 110, 297, 528 Henry VIII, king of England: 110, 297

613

Henry ‘the Young King’, son of Henry II: 124n145, 279, 281, 306n31, 307–09, 314–16 Henry, prince of Wales, son of James I: 511, 519, 544, 569, 572–73 Henry, Scottish prince: 230–31 Henry of Almain: 424 Henry of Blois, archbishop of Winchester: 221n1, 222, 232, 235, 237–43, 251 Henry of Huntingdon: 113, 216 Henry of Trastámara: 494n24 Herder, Johann Gottfried: xxin22 heresy: 286–88, 339: 513, 543, 566 Hervey, John, second baron: 6n15 Herward the Wake: 147n3 Hickes, George: 113 High Commission Court: 571–72 Hildrop, John: xivn2 Hippisley, William: 44 Histoire d’Angleterre (Rapin-Thoyras, 1723–25) see Rapin-Thoyras Histoire de l’église du Japon (Crasset, 1689): 74 Histoire générale des cérémonies, moeurs et coutumes religieuses de tous les peuples du monde (ed. Banier and Le Mascrier, 1741): 58–60 Historical Essay of the Legislative Power (St Amand, 1725): 115 The Historie of the World (Raleigh): 518n24, 519 History of England (Echard, 1707–18): 114 History of England (Gordon, unfinished draft): xxiv, 101–33; see also specific topics, persons, and events addressed in text aim and purpose of: xxiii, 112, 132–33 and Gordon’s classical translations: 34n71, 90n26, 96n50, 97n51, 98, 102n69, 103, 132, 450n55, 483 central themes of Gordon’s writing in: 12n26, 31n63, 33n67, 40n84 dating of: 103–04 editorial conventions: 137 extracts and citations in other Gordon works: 47n98, 103 historical bias and: 103–04, 133 Jacobite threat and: 103, 129, 132 manuscript of: xxiii, 102–03, 137, 139–40 Parliamentary origins and antiquity,

614

differing historical views on: 104–10, 132n178 plans for composition of: 34n71, 101–02 Sinophilia and: xi, 73, 348 sources: 110–17, 132 summary of contents and themes: 117–32 text: 141–575; see also specific kings of England text-critical sigla for: 138 unfinished state of: xxiii: 102–03, 132, 139, 140 The History of Great Britain, Being the Life and Reign of King James the First (Wilson, 1653): 113, 505, 541 The History of Great Britain under the House of Stuart (Hume, 1754 and later edns): 116n116 The History of Japan (Kaempfer, 1727–28): 76–77 History of the World (Sir Walter Raleigh, 1614): 97 Hoadly, Benjamin, bishop of Bangor: xx, 8–10, 47n98, 81n64, 120 Hobbes, Thomas: 8, 18, 22n43, 26, 27, 30n61, 32, 34 Hogarth, William: 59n20 Holbach, Baron d’: xxin23, 15, 75n51, 83 Holbourne, Robert: 107 Holland see Netherlands Hollis, Thomas: xxin23, 44n93 Home, Alexander: 16 Homosexuality: 70, 73, 128n163 Horace: 87 Hugh of Vermandois: 188 Hughes, John: 111 Hume, David: 83n68, 116n116, 216n15 The Humourist (Gordon, 1720/1724–1725): 4, 7–8 Hundred Years’ War: 128, 482n10, 490n19 Hunt, Lynn: 62 Husen, Jeremiah van: 79–81 Hyp-Doctor, periodical: 8, 37 The Independent Reflector, American weekly: 17, 24 Independent Whig (Gordon and Trenchard, 1720 and later edns): 15–20 final works of Gordon in seventh edition (1747): 43–44

INDEX on religion and the church: xviiin17, xixn18, 24, 32, 34, xxivn33 significance and influence: xxi–xxii, xxiii Sinophilia and: 50n3, 53n10, 55, 57n16, 67n36, 70, 73, 75n51, 76n54, 82n67 Skelton on: 32 Ingulf, abbot of Crowland (Ingulphus of Croyland): 113, 119n127, 164 Innocent II, pope: 221n1, 232n17 Innocent III, pope: 333n2, 400n37 Innocent IV, pope: 126n154, 384, 387–93, 400n37 Inquisition: 186, 277, 392 The Interpreter (Cowell, 1607): 131, 567n71, 569n72, 574 Intorcetta, Prospero: 61n21 Introduction to the History of England (Temple, 1695): 104, 111 Introduction to the Old History of England (Brady, 1684): 108 Inventing the People (Morgan, 1988): 23 investiture controversies see religion and the church Ireland, English efforts to conquer and control: 90n26, 123–24, 168, 250, 290–303, 317, 363–64, 455, 465, 570 Irregular Dissertation, Occasioned by the Reading of Father Du Halde’s Description of China: 80n62 Isabella of England, empress, wife of Frederick II: 366n18, 374 Isabella of France, queen of England, wife of Edward II, regent for Edward III: 127, 456, 462–66, 469–75, 477, 479, 482n10, 488–89 Islam, eighteenth-century representations of see religion and the church Israel, Jonathan: 32 Jacob, Margaret C.: 62 Jacobites Atterbury plot: 51n5 Blackett, Sir William, as: 35 Gordon’s anti-Jacobitism: 43, 66, 85 Oxford, Robert Harley, earl of, as: 5 persistent threat of: xxiii, 29, 35, 103, 129, 132 Rebellion of 1715: 53 Rebellion of 1745: 16, 60n20, 66, 103

INDEX James I, king of England: 33n67, 97, 103, 104, 110, 113, 114, 117, 129–32, 501–75 James II, king of England: 64–65n29, 85n3, 107, 122–23n139, 300 James IV, king of Scotland: 129n169 Japan, Roman Catholicism, and religious toleration: 73–77 Jeannin, Pierre: 566–67 Jefferson, Thomas: 23, 99 Jeffreys, George: xviiin15 Jesuits: xxiv, 49, 51n6, 52n7, 57n16, 60–61n21, 65n31, 75n51, 546 Jetzer, Hans: 70n42 Jews biblical text and: xvin10 creation ex nihilo and: xxivn33 expulsion from England (1290): 126 in eighteenth-century England: 126–27n157 millenarianism and conversion of: 81 morality as natural religion and: 18, 82 oppressed in England: 124, 126, 321, 340, 380, 383, 404, 408, 409 Roman Catholic bigotry and: 543 slavery in law of: 43 William II Rufus bribed by: 191 Joan of Acre: 454n2 Joan of the Tower, queen of Scotland, wife of David II, and sister of Edward III: 472n4, 483 Joanna, queen of Sicily, daughter of Henry II: 312 John XXII, pope: 461n20 John I Lackland, king of England: 124n145, 124n148, 125n149, 296, 306–07n31, 307, 312, 315, 317, 319, 322, 323, 325, 329, 333n2, 335 John II, king of France: 490–93 John of Crema: 216 John of Sittingbourne: 342n8 John of Worcester: 177n5 Johnson, Edward: xiv–xvn5 Johnson, Samuel: 6n15, 52 Josephus: xvi Journal de Trévoux: 58 Journal des Sçavants: 74 Julius Caesar: 483 Jurieu, Pierre: xviii–xix, 31, 55 Jus Anglorum ab antiquo (Atwood, 1681): 108

615

Justi, Heinrich Gottlieb von: 49 Kaempfer, Engelbert: 76–77 Karamzin, Nikolai Mikhailovich: xxin22 Keimer, Samuel: 55n15 Kennet, White: 108 Kent, Edmund, son of Edward I, first earl of: 464, 472n4, 473, 474n6 Kepler, Johannes: 7 Killegrew, Sir William: 518 King, Sir Robert: 42 Kingston, Evelyn, last duke of: 94 Kneller, Godfrey: 64n29 Knighton, Henry: 107n79 Knights, Mark: 107n85 Knights-Templars: 304 Kouli Kan (Shash Nadir): 158, 159 Kramnick, Isaac: 26, 29, 108 La Marche, Hugh X de Lusignan, count of: 381 La Rochefoucauld, François: 30 Lacy, Hugh de: 295 Lambarde, William: 97n51, 105 Lambeth, Treaty of (1217): 329n1 lampreys, death of Henry I from surfeit of: 218 Lancaster and Leicester, Edmund Crouchback, son of Henry III, first earl of: 125, 409, 419, 471n2 Lancaster, Henry, third earl of: 472n3, 474 Lancaster, John of Gaunt, first duke of: 472n3, 474, 496 Lancaster, Thomas, grandson of Edward I, earl of: 457–61, 463, 471, 474 Lanfranc of Bec, archbishop of Canterbury: 120, 153n5, 170, 172, 178, 179n7 Langton, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury: 332–33 Lateran Council (1215): 380n29 Latimer, William: 496n26 Latitudinarians: 10, 38, 109 Laudabiliter, papal bull, 1155: 291n22 Laws of King Edgar: 105n79 Le Blanc, Jean-Bernard, abbé: 116n116 Le Clerc, Jean: 65, 67n35, 112n103, 115n114 Le Comte, Louis: 60n21, 68, 69, 77, 78n58, 83 Le Gobien, Charles: 60n21

616

Leges Edwardi Confessoris (Laws of St Edward): 105–06, 107n87, 117, 120, 123, 129n168, 252, 311 Leicester, Simon de Montfort the Younger, earl of: 126, 354, 369, 373, 400–401, 407n39, 423, 428–29, 431n48, 433–46, 438n50, 439n51, 442n52, 449 Lepidus (Marcus Lepidus): 91n28 Leslie, Charles: 8 L’Estrange, Sir Roger: 87n10 The Letter from Rome (Middleton, 1729): 66–67 Letter of Congratulation from the Devil to the Inhabitants of London and Westminster to the Inhabitants of London and Westminster (Printed by the Fool, [1750?]): 45 A Letter of Consolation and Counsel to the Good People of England (Gordon, 1750): xix–xx, 45–48, 64n27, 91n31 Letter to a Convocation Man (Atterbury, 1697): 108 Letter to a Gentleman in Edinburgh (Gordon, 1732): 16 Letter to the Clergy and People of London and Westminster […] (Sherlock, 1750): xix–xx, 45–48 Letter to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury proving that His Grace cannot be the author of the Letter (Gordon, 1719): 10 A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Codex (Gordon, 1734): 38 Letters from a Pennsylvania Farmer (Dickinson, 1767–68): 99 Lettres édifiantes et curieuses: 52n7, 59n20 Lettres Persanes (Montesquieu, 1721): 54, 55 Lewes, Battle of (1264): 438n50 Lewis, kings of France see entries at Louis Lhwyd, Edward: 113 liberty, Gordon on: xi, xxii, 21–22, 89, 92, 93, 95n47, 97, 132; see also specific freedoms Licensing Act (1737): xvii, 80n62 Lincoln, Battle of (1141): 236n13, 240n16 Lipsius, Justus: 95 Literary History of Galloway (Murray, 1822): 3–4 Livingstone, William: 17 Livy: 21, 514

INDEX Llywelyn (Lewellyn) the Great, prince of Wales: 341, 345, 361, 364, 369, 380, 416n43 Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, prince of Wales: 416n43, 419n44 Locke, John relationship between church and state, Gordon and Trenchard’s views on: 76n54 Churchill brothers and: 71n45 Collins and: 58 Epistola de tolerantia (Letter Concerning Toleration; 1689): 53–54, 64 Gordon and Trenchard’s Cato’s Letters and: 24–27, 29, 30n61 in Gordon’s A Modest Apology (1718–19): 9 Hoadly and: 8 Second Letter Concerning Toleration (1690): 71n45 Tacitus and Sallust, Gordon’s translations of: 89, 99, 101 Third Letter on Toleration (1692): 66–67n35 Treatises on Civil Government (1689): xxii Voltaire on: 109n95 Lockman, John: 59–60n20, 115n116 Lollards: xviii, 11 London earthquakes (1750): xix–xx, 45–48, 91 London Journal: xxii, 20, 28n58, 30, 35–36, 37 London Magazine: 36–37n77 London, Treaty of (1604): 516 Long Parliament (1640–48): 38 Longobardi, Nichola: 65n31 The Lord Holles His Remains (Atwood, 1682): 108 Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor: 484, 489 Louis VI, king of France: 209n11, 210–13, 215, 217 Louis VII, king of France: 227n6, 244, 261n8, 305, 306n31, 307–13, 319n38 Louis VIII, king of France: 124n148, 125n151, 329, 335, 338–39 Louis IX, king of France: 338, 339n6, 381–82, 394–95, 398 Louis XIV, king of France: 64n29 Luca dei Fieschi, Cardinal: 461n20 Lucian: 7

INDEX Ludlow, Siege of (1139): 231 Lumbreras, Joaquín: 101 Lun-yü: 61n21 Lutherans: 56 Luzzatto, Simone: 126n157 Lyons, First Council of (1245): 388–89 Mabillon, Jean: 113 Macaulay, Catharine: xxin23 Machiavelli, Niccoló, and Machiavellianism: xxin22, xxiiin31, 20, 21–22, 26, 27, 30n61, 96n50 The Machiavellian Moment (Pocock, 1975): 26 ‘Mad Parliament’ (1258): 421–24 Madox, Thomas: 112 Magna C[h]arta or Great Charter Edward II and: 457 Edward III and: 492, 493 Gordon’s composition of History of England and: 106, 109, 122, 123, 124n148, 132 Henry I and: 195, 206, 207, 209 Henry II and: 252 Henry III and: 332, 333n2, 334, 336, 352, 353, 354n12, 359, 384, 399, 405, 411, 412, 415, 423, 432 James I and: 525 King John and First Barons’ War (1215–1217): 124n148, 329n1, 354n12 Stephen of Blois and: 224, 231 Mahmud Ghilzai (Mir Magmud), Afghan ruler: 156–57 Maigrot, Charles: 57n16 Main Plot (1603): 516–19 Malcolm III, king of Scotland: 176, 177–78, 195, 307 Malebranche, Nicolas: 61n21 The Man in the Moone (Goodwin, 1638): 7 Mandeville, Bernard de: 6n15, 29, 30–31, 32, 57n16 Manfred, king of Sicily: 410, 411n41, 412 March, Edmond Mortimer, earl of: 478(a) March, Roger Mortimer, favourite of Isabella, mother of Edward III, and first earl of: 98, 127, 466, 469–79 March, Roger Mortimer, father of Ann Mortimer, duchess of York,

617

fourth earl of: 478(a) Mare Liberum (Grotius, 1609): 564n68 Margaret Tudor, queen of Scotland: 129n169 married clergy: 199–201, 208, 209–10, 215–16 Martagne, earl of: 204 Martini, Martino: 51n6 Marvezzi, Virgilio: 86n6 Mary I Tudor, queen of England: 250 Mary, queen of Scots: 501–02, 507n6, 513n14 masculinity, eighteenth-century concepts of: 127, 128n163 Matilda (Maud), daughter of Henry I, empress and contender for English throne: 122n136, 123, 209, 216–29, 236–44, 251, 252 Matilda, daughter of Henry II: 287–88 Matilda of Boulogne, queen of England, wife of Stephen of Blois: 230n9, 239, 246 Matilda, queen of England, wife of Henry I: 195 Mat[t]hew Paris: 113, 367n19, 383n32, 391, 392 Maurienne, Hubert, earl of: 307 McMahon, Marie P.: 26, 29–30 Mead, Richard: xiv Metempsychosis: 62, 68–69 Méziriac, Claude-Gaspard Bachet de: 82n66 Middleton, Conyers: 66–67 Mijnhardt, Wijnand: 62 military conquest, Gordon’s reflections on: 88n17, 117–18, 123–24, 127–28, 141–48, 155–60, 165–68, 480–83 millenarianism: 45, 79–82, 520n25 Milton, John: 8, 31 Mirabeau, Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, comte de: xxi miracles claimed in name of Thomas Becket: 284–86, 310 Mirror of Justices: 105 Mitchell, Annie: 30–31, 132n178 mixed government and balance of powers: 95, 96 A Modest Apology for Parson Alberoni (Gordon, 1718–19): 9 Modus tenendi Parliamentum: 105 Molesworth, Robert: 11, 14n30 Molière: xviiin17

618

monopolies: 564–65 Monson, Sir William: 541 Montagu, Charles: 11 Montesquieu, Charles Louis de Secondat, baron de: xx, 54, 55, 59n20, 76, 78n58, 83, 116n117 Montezuma, Aztec ruler: 166, 167n12 Montfort, Simon de, the Elder: 369 Montfort, Simon de (son of Simon de Montfort the Younger, earl of Leicester): 442 Montgomery, Treaty of (1267): 419n44 The Monthly Catalogue: 60n20 Monthly Review: 43–44n91, 44n93, 81n64 moon travels, fantastical accounts of: 7–8 morality as natural religion: 17–18, 82 Morehead, William: 62 Morgan, Edmund: 23 Morris, Lewis: 23 Mortimer, Roger, I see March, Roger Mortimer, favourite of Isabella Mortimer, Roger, IV see March, Roger Mortimer, father of Ann Mortimer Mortmain Bill (1736): 39 Morvil[le], Hugh de: 283 Mowbray, Robert de: 177–78 Moyle, Walter: 11 Murphy, Arthur: 3 Murray, George: 4n5 Murray, Thomas: xxi–xxii, 3–4 Musonius Rufus: 133n181 Mussard, Pierre: 67n36 Nader Sha Afshar (Ashraff ), shah of Iran: 157–58 Naigeon, Jacques-André: 15n32, 75n51 Nájera, Battle of (1367): 494n24 Nantes, Geof[f ]ry of Anjou, count of: 245, 252 The Necessity of Revelation (Campbell, 1739): xiv Neo-Confucianism: 61n21, 65n31 Neoterics: 65 Nero, Roman emperor: 91, 92, 183, 414 Netherlands influence of Dutch republicans on Gordon: 30–32 James I and: 541, 564, 565–67 Spain, civil war against: 168, 565–67

INDEX Vorstius and Arminians, writings of James I against: 130n173, 513 Neville, John: 496n26 Neville, Ralph: 342n8, 366n17 Neville’s Cross, Battle of (1346): 489 ‘A New Catechism for the Fine Ladies […]’ (Gordon, 1740): xiii New Forest: 154–55, 190–91 New York Gazette: 23 New York Weekly Journal: 23, 24 Newton, Isaac: xiv Nicolson, William: 108 Nigel, bishop of Ely: 235 Noël, François: 68n38 Non-obstante prerogative of Henry III: 399–400 non-resistance theory: 129–30 Norman feudal law and English political institutions: 104–08 Northampton, Assizes of: 313, 314n34 Northampton, Henry Howard, earl of: 515–16 Northumberland, Henry Percy, ninth earl of: 504, 517, 542n38, 544, 545–46 Northumberland, Waltheof (Walthoff ), first earl of: 153 Nottingham, Charles Howard, first earl of: 540 Nye, Stephen: 63n24 O-Roric, king of Meath: 293–94 Occasional Conformity Act (1711): 12, 37 Odo of Bayeaux: 170n1 Ogle, Luke: xvn5 The Old Whig: or, Consistent Protestant (periodical): 38n81 ‘Old Whigs’: 37–38, 132n179 Oldcastle, John, Lord Cobham: xviii, 11, 139–40 Oldcorn[e], Edward: 552 Oldmixon, John: 114n112 ‘the ominous decade’: 101 Oratio historica de Beneficiis in Ecclesiam Tigurinam collatiis (attrib. Wake, 1719): 10 The Original and Institution of Civil Government (Hoadly, 1709): 8–9 Orléans, Pierre Joseph d’: 113, 510 Osborne, Thomas: 71n45, 114n111, 545

INDEX Ostervald, Jean-Frédéric: 10 Otho, cardinal and papal legate: 370, 375–79 Ottobuono, Cardinal: 449n54 Ottoman (Turkish) empire: 167, 358 Overbury, Sir Thomas: 508n7 Oxford, Provisions of (1258): 126, 424–25, 430–35, 438–40 Oxford, Horace Walpole, fourth earl of: 35n72 Oxford and Earl Mortimer, Robert Harley, first earl of: 5, 13, 19 paganism China, Sinophilia, and Confucianism: 49, 55, 56, 66–69 Crusades and: 397 Roman Catholicism compared with: 49, 66–69, 72–73, 183, 277, 339, 344–45, 397, 414 Paget, Henry, Lord: 16 Pangle, Thomas: 26 papacy and papists see Roman Catholicism; individual popes Papists’ Disabling Act (1678): 509n8 Paris, Mat[t]hew see Mat[t]hew Paris Parker, Matthew, archbishop of Canterbury: 113n106 Parker, William, fourth baron Mounteagle: 546 Parliament called by Simon de Montfort: 439n51 Cato’s Letters on representation in: 33–34 Edward II’s promises to: 460n17 Edward III’s dissolution and resummons of: 473–74 ‘Good Parliament’ (1376): 496n26, 499 Henry III’s dissolution of: 395 James I and: 524–26, 532, 536–39, 548–50, 554–55, 560–61, 563, 565, 567–73 Long Parliament (1640–48): 38 ‘Mad Parliament’ (1258): 421–24 origins and antiquity, differing historical views on: 104–10, 132n178 Pascal, Blaise: 74 Paschal II, pope: 202n7 Paschal III, antipope: 288 Pasquin, periodical: 7n16 Pate, Mr.: 86n7

619

Patriarcha (Filmer, 1680): 8 Paul V, pope: 553n50 Peele, John: 34 Peerage Bill: 12, 13–14 Pembroke, Eleanor of England, countess of: 373 Pembroke, Gilbert Marshal, fourth earl of: 374 Pembroke, Richard de Clare, second earl of (‘Strongbow’): 294 Pembroke, Richard Marshal, third earl of: 346n10, 351–52, 360–64 Pembroke, Thomas Herbert, eighth earl of: 113n110 Pembroke, William Marshal, first earl of: 124, 125n151, 329–31, 354–55, 447 Percy, Sir Thomas: 542n38, 544–45 Perrers (Pierce), Alice: 128, 496n26, 497–99 Peter the Cruel, king of Castile: 494–95 Peter, czar of Russia: 481 Peter of Bruys: 287n18 Peter-Pence: 278, 291n22, 292 Petilius Cerialis: 93n36 Petrobrusians: 287n18 Pettit, Philip: xxii, 32 Petyt, William: 107, 108 Philip II Augustus, king of France: 307n31, 312–13, 318–25, 338 Philip II, king of Spain: 168, 565, 566 Philip IV, king of France: 456n9, 482n10 Philip VI, king of France: 482, 484n14–15, 489, 490, 491n20 Philip of Alsace, count of Flanders: 321 Philip the Bold, son of John II of France: 491 Philip de Brois (Broc): 256 Philippa, daughter of Lionel, duke of Clarence: 478(a) Philippa of Hainault, queen of England, wife of Edward III: 472n4, 497 Philosophical Dissertation on Death (Radicati, 1732): 34 Picart, Bernard: 58, 59, 62 Piedmontese fugitives: 286–87 Pigott, Sir Christopher: 561n65 Pig’s Meat, or, Lessons for the Swinish Multitude (periodical, 1793–95): 101 Pilgrim’s Progress (Bunyan, 1678): xviiin15 Pitt, James: 37 Plutarch: 7

INDEX

620

Pocock, J. G. A.: xxiv, 21, 26, 67n35, 83n71, 102n69, 104, 108 Poiret, Pierre: 46n97 Poitiers, Battle of (1356): 490–91 Political Discourses see under Gordon, Thomas, writings of politics and government balance of powers in: 95, 96 diffidentia and corruptio in: 95–96 divine right of kings: 80n62, 114n113, 129–30, 129n170, 502, 515, 522, 556, 562, 567, 574–75 Gordon’s political philosophy: 24–34 Gordon’s writings on: xx–xxiii, 42–43 limited versus unlimited power: 358 non-resistance theory: 129–30 popular sovereignty: 95, 97–98 relationship between church and state, Gor­ don and Trenchard’s views on: 76n54 resistance theory: 87n14, 131n175, 160 rule of law, Gordon on: xxii, 48, 85n3, 89, 97, 132, 133 Sinophilia and: 50–53, 77–79, 82–83 spiritual versus secular authority: 179–86, 349 see also liberty, Gordon on; Magna C[h]arta or Great Charter; Norman feudal law and English political institutions; Parliament; republicanism; Sallust; Tacitus; specific rulers from History of England Polybius: 96n50 Poor Men of Lyons: 287n18 Pope, Alexander: xiii, 6n15, 35n72, 99 Popple, William: 64–65 popular sovereignty: 95, 97–98, 114n113 pornography, publication of: xv, 44n93 ‘Prayer for a Young Virgin in Great Distress’ (1740): xiii Prévost, Nicolas: 59–60n20 Price, Richard: 101 Prideaux, Humphrey: 63 Priestianity (Gordon, 1720): 11–12 ‘Priestianity’, as neologism: 53 Priestley, Joseph: 101 Prior, Matthew: 6n15 Pro regibus apologia (Blackwood, 1581): 131, 567n71 Provincial Letters (Pascal, 1656–57): 74

Prynne, William: 129n168 Psalm 1, Pope’s ‘profane’ version of (1716): xiii Pufendorf, Samuel: xx, 41, 42 Puiset, Hugh de, bishop of Durham: 279–80n15, 281, 282 Purchas, Samuel: 71n45 Puritans: xviiin15, 130n173, 131, 513, 520–23, 530–31, 534, 537, 549–51, 565, 568, 571 Quadrature of Curves (Newton, trans. Stewart, 1745): xiv Quakers, Gordon on: 40 Quakers’ Tithe Bill (1736): 39 Quincy, Josiah, Jr.: 99 Quintus Marcius Rex: 97 Radical Enlightenment (Israel, 2001): 32 Radicati di Passerano, Alberto: 32–33, 70 Radicati di Passerano, Tecla Maria: 70 Rainald of Dassel, archbishop of Cologne:  288 Rainbow Coffee House Group: xxn21 Rainolds (Reynolds), John: 520n25, 521 Raleigh (Ralegh), Sir Walter: 97, 517–19, 546, 565, 572 Ralph, archbishop of Canterbury: 214–15 Ramaswamy, Jaikur: xxin23 Rapin-Thoyras, Paul de, Histoire d’Angleterre (1723–25) directly cited in Gordon’s History of England: 276, 341, 391, 463 used as source for Gordon’s History of England: 110, 115–17, 121n133, 121n135, 122n138, 124–25n149, 127n158, 295n23, 419n45, 541n37, 570n73 Ravaillac, François: 546n41 Rawle, Francis: 55n15 Recueil de pieces curieuses sur les matieres les plus interessantes (Radicati, 1736): 34 ‘red’ Tacitism: xxiii Reeland, Adriaan: 62 Reform Act (1832): 33n68 Rehearsal, periodical: 8 religion and the church ‘Articles of Abuses’ (Articuli Cleri): 538–39 Becket controversy: 123–24, 125n149, 249–50, 251n1, 253–90, 303–05, 309, 312–14, 327

INDEX Calvinists: 56, 130n173, 131, 513, 520, 534, 566 conscience, freedom of: 89 Convocation, power to assemble: 108–09 English debate on toleration: 53–55 ‘enthusiasm’ for: 305, 313, 320 episcopacy, James I’s support for: 503, 520, 522, 539 Gordon as ‘religious atheist’: 82–83 in Gordon’s History of England: 108–09, 123, 129–30n171, 131–32, 133 Gordon’s writings on: xi, xiii–xx, xxii, 8–12, 37–41, 47–48 Hampton Court Conference (1604): 520–22 investiture controversies: 121, 179–86, 201–02, 212n14, 337, 342 Islam, eighteenth-century representations of: 61–65 Lutherans: 56 morality as natural religion: 17–18, 82 in ‘Political Discourses’: 133 Puritans: xviiin15, 130n173, 131, 513, 520–23, 530–31, 534, 537, 549–51, 565, 568, 571 Quakers: 39–40 relationship between church and state, Gordon and Trenchard’s views on: 76n54 repentance and absolution, doctrines of: 161–63, 348, 385 sanctuary, ecclesiastical provision of: 349–250 Sinophilia and religious toleration: 50–58, 66, 72–77 spiritual versus secular authority: 179–86, 349 superstition: xi, 11, 24, 58, 70, 72–73, 91, 123, 130n173, 344, 348–49, 370, 444 Walpole’s ecclesiastical policy: 37–39, 73, 80n62 see also ecclesiastical courts; Roman Catholicism Remarks upon the History of England (Bolingbroke, 1730–31): 103, 109 republicanism English: 83n71 of Gordon: xxii, xxiii, 24–34, 83–84, 99 teaching of: 90n27

621

resistance theory see politics and government Revelation, James I’s commentary on (1588): 130n173, 510 Reynolds, Walter, archbishop of Canterbury: 467 Rheims, Council of (1119): 208n11, 212, 213 Rhodes, Alexander de: 72n47 Riccio, David: 513n14 Rich, Edmund, archbishop of Canterbury: 342n8, 346n10, 364 Richard I, king of England: 124n145, 125n149, 296, 306–07n31, 308, 310, 311, 314, 315, 317–26 Richard II, king of England: 110, 129n167–68, 296, 525 Richard le Breton (Richard Brittain): 283 Richard, Carl J.: 78n60 Richard of Normandy: 191n16 Richardson, Jonathan: 35n72 Rights, Powers and Priviledges of an English Convocation (Atterbury, 1700): 108 Riot Act (1714): 29 Robbins, Caroline: xxi: 25, 29 Robert I [the] Bruce, king of Scotland: 458, 459n15, 460, 461n20, 469n1, 472n4, 483n11 Robert Curthose, duke of Normandy: 120, 161n11, 169–70, 169–71, 175–77, 188–89, 191n16, 193–98, 202–08, 211, 213, 218 Robert de Brock: 282 Roberts, James: 6, 8, 20, 41n91, 80n62 Rochester, Robert Carr, earl of Somerset and viscount of: 508, 563–64 Roderick, Charles: xvi Roger, bishop of Salisbury: 222–23, 231–32 Roger of Pont L’Evêque, archbishop of York: 279n15, 281, 282 Roman Catholicism Gordon in History of England on: 113, 120, 122, 126, 131, 179–86, 247–48, 250, 343–45, 392, 542–43 James I and: 502–03, 505–06, 509n8, 513, 515–16, 522, 531, 534, 542, 546, 549–54, 568 oath for English recusants: 552–54 paganism compared with: 49, 66–69, 72–73, 183, 277, 339, 344–45, 397, 414

622

schism, papal: 288–89 Sinophilia and: xi, 56, 58n19, 59, 64–65n29, 66–70, 72, 73–74 Tacitus and Sallust, Gordon’s translations of: 91, 98 Triple Crown, papal: 186 Romilly, Jean: 54 Rosny, Maximilien de Béthune, duke de Sully and marquis de: 516, 573 Rossiter, Clinton: xxii Ruah Kritikon: A Short Comment Upon the Revelation of Jeremiah Van Husen (Gordon, 1720): 81n64 Rubeus, Petrus: 379n28 rule of law, Gordon on see politics and government Rundle, Thomas, bishop of Londonderry: 38–39 Russo, Vincenzo: xxin22 Rustand, papal legate: 411, 419 Ruthven, Alexander, master of: 548n45 Rutledge, Anna Wells: 35n72 Rycke, Theodor de: 85 Rye House Plot (1683): 114n113 Rymer, Thomas: 112 Ryswick, Treaty of (1697): 11 ‘Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties’ (Cox, 1853): 140 Sacheverell crisis: 12 Sackvil[le], Nigel (Pigel) de: 282 St Amand, George: 115, 117 St James Journal: 7n16, 31 Sale, George: xiv Salic law: 482n10 Salisbury, Robert Cecil, first earl of: 505, 515–18, 547, 552, 563–64, 569–71, 569n72 Sallust parallels between life and career of Gordon and: 85 popularity and influence of Gordon’s works on: 99–101 The Works (trans. Gordon, 1744): xvii–xviiin15, xx, 31n62, 42, 75n51, 78n60, 82n66, 94, 97–99, 101–02, 111n99 see also Gordon, Thomas, writings of, ‘Political Discourses upon Sallust’

INDEX Sancho, king of Navarre: 314 sanctuary, ecclesiastical provision of: 349–50 Scaliger, Joseph Justus: 113–14, 507 Scaligerana (1740 edn): 103, 507(a) Scheuchzer, Johan Caspar: 76 Schism Act (1714): 12, 37 schism, papal: 288–89 Schoock, Martin: 41 Scotland episcopacy in, James I’s efforts to establish: 503, 520, 522 Henry II’s peace with: 253 hostilities with England: 151–52, 176, 177–78, 226–30, 237, 296, 308–11, 385–86, 453, 458–61, 465, 469, 482–83, 488–89 James I’s court, Scots at: 508–09, 535, 559, 571 Kirk of: 56–57, 502, 520, 534 papal legate refused by: 370 union of Scottish and English crowns: 131n174, 529–30, 535, 550, 554–63 see also Jacobites Scythians: 165 Second Barons’ War (1263–1264): 125, 354n12, 431–44 Segrave, Stephen de: 346, 365, 366, 374 Sejanus (Lucius Aelius Seianus): 110 Selden, John: 105, 114n111, 129n168 Sensus Communis (Shaftesbury, 1709): xviiin17 Septennial Act (1715): 14 A Sermon Preached before the Learned Society of Lincoln’s Inn on January 30. 1732 […] by a Layman (Gordon, 1733): 16 Sermons and Essays upon Several Subjects (Whiston, 1709): xvi sexual predation, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern bonzes: 69–70, 73 Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of: xviiin17, 11, 109n95 Shen Fuzong, Michael Alphonsus: 64–65n29 Sherlock, Thomas, bishop of London: xvi, xix–xx, 45–48, 67n35 Shrewsbury, Hugh of Montgomery, second earl of: 189 Shrewsbury, Robert de Bel[l]ême,

INDEX third earl of: 197–98, 202, 204, 210 Sicily, kingdom of: 125, 312, 374n25, 409–12, 417–21, 425, 433–34, 443, 450 Sidney, Algernon: xviiin15, 8, 25, 28n56, 99 Silla: 97 Sinophilia see China, Confucianism, and Sinophilia Skelton, Philip: 32 Skinner, Quentin: 21–22, 32 slavery and servitude: 43, 88, 131 Sloane, Hans: 76 Smith, Adam: 102n67 Smith, William, Sr.: 24 Society for the Encouragement of Learning: xiii–xiv, 35n72 Socinians: 63 Solomon, James I compared to: 513 Somerset, Robert Carr, viscount Rochester and earl of: 508, 563–64 Sommerville, J. P.: 129n170 Somnium sive opus posthumum de astronomia lunaris (Kepler, 1634): 7 South Sea Bubble: 18–19, 38 Spaccio della Bestia Trionfante (Bruno, 1584): 62, 63n23 Spain conquests in New World: 88n17, 94n40, 133, 166–67 Dutch civil war: 168, 565–67 James I and: 516, 539, 540–41, 547, 565–67 Spedalieri, Nicola: 90–91n27 speech, freedom of: 89, 92–93 Spelman, Sir Henry: 106–07, 109, 116 Spence, Thomas: 101 Spencean Philanthropists: 101n66 Spinoza, Baruch: 34, 54, 59n20, 61n21, 76 The Spirit of the Ecclesiasticks of All Sects and Ages (Pufendorf, trans. Gordon, 1722): xx, 41 Stafford, Thomas Wentworth, first earl of: 303(a) Standard, Battle of the (1138): 229n8 standing armies: 11 Stanhope, Charles: 19 Stanhope, James: 12–15, 19, 37 Stanhope, Sir Michael: 518 Star Chamber: 545, 571–72

623

The State Anatomy of Great Britain (Toland, 1717): 12 Steele, Sir Richard: 6n15, 46n97 Stephen of Blois, king of England: 122, 221–48 Stewart, John: xiv Stratford Articles of 1327: 456n6 Stratford, John de, archbishop of Canterbury: 456n6 Stuart, Alexander: xiv Stuart, Arabella: 516–17 Stubb, Henry: 63n24 The Student, periodical: 45 subsidies see taxes and subsidies Suffolk, Thomas Howard, earl of: 515–16 Sullivan, M. G.: 115–16n116 Sullivan, Vickie: 25, 27, 115–16n116 Sully, Maximilien de Béthune, marquis De Rosny and duke de: 516, 573 Sunderland, Charles Spencer, third earl of: 12–15, 19–20 Sunderland/Stanhope ministry, reform programme of: 12–15 superstition see under religion and the church Supino, Petrus de: 379n28 Sweden: 56, 81, 481, 501 Sweyn II, king of Denmark: 147n3, 153n5 Swift, Jonathan: xivn2, 6n15, 111n99, 112 Sword Blade Company: 18–19 Sydney, Philip: 101 Ta Hsüeh: 61n21 Tacitism: xxiii Tacitus Annales: 86, 91–92, 532n31, 550n47 cited in Gordon’s History of England: 132n181 De origine et situ Germanorum (Germania): 88, 90n26, 116n117, 124 De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae: 53, 88–89, 92n34–35, 93 Historiae: 91n28, 92n34, 93 in Cato’s Letters: 27 parallels between life and career of Gordon and: 85 popularity and influence of Gordon’s works on: 85, 99–101 quoted by James I: 532, 550 ‘red’ Tacitism: xxiii

624

Trenchard and Gordon’s reasons for valuing: 30n61 Works of Tacitus (trans. Gordon, 1728–31): xi, xx, xxin22, xxiii, xxivn33, 3, 34n71, 42, 53, 85–86, 91–93, 103 see also Gordon, Thomas, writings of, Political Discourses Tahmasp II (Tamas), Iranian ruler: 159 Talbot, Charles, baron, Lord Chancellor: 38–39 The Tale of a Tub (Swift, 1704): 111n99 Tamerlane the Beneficent (Popple, 1692, unpub.): 64–65 Tartars: 71–72 Tartuffe (Molière, 1664): xviiin17 Tatler, periodical: 46n97 taxes and subsidies Danegeld (Dane–Gilt): 146n2, 158, 224 Peter-Pence: 278, 291n22, 292 power of the purse: 525 under Henry I: 203–04, 209 under Henry III: 334–35, 335–36, 337–38, 340–41, 366–69, 377–79, 382–85, 386, 393–96, 398–99, 411–15, 418, 419 under James I: 554, 570–72 under William I: 145–46, 153–54, 159 under William II: 189 Temple, Sir William: 49, 84, 104, 110–12 Tenison, Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury: 30 Tesmond, Oswald (Oswald Greenwell): 545, 551–52 Test Acts (1673, 1678): 12, 39 The Pillars of Priestcraft and Orthodoxy Shaken (ed. Barron, 1752): 46–47n98 Theobald of Bec, archbishop of Canterbury: 222n2, 227n6, 240n16, 244–45 Thesaurus of the Northern Tongues (Hickes, 1705): 113 Thomasius, Christian: 41 Thomlinson, William Henry: 39n77 Thompson, E. P.: 29 The Thoughts of a Member of the Lower House (Walpole, 1719): 14 Thrasea Paetus: 92 Three Political Letters to a Noble Lord concerning Liberty and the Constitution

INDEX (Gordon, 1721): 21 Thurstan (Thurston), archbishop of York: 229 Tiberius, Roman emperor: 519 Tinchebray, Battle of (1106): 198n4, 207, 208n11 Tindal, Matthew: 8, 32, 41, 47, 49, 54, 66n35, 115, 120 Tindal, Nicholas: 115–17, 121n133, 121n135, 122n138, 125n149, 127n158, 276n13 Tirel, Walter: 190n15 Titus, Gottlieb Gerhard: 42 tobacco trade: 540 Toffanin, Giuseppe: xxiiin31 Tokugawa, Ieyasu: 74n50 Toland, John: xxn21, 8, 11–14, 32, 54, 59n20, 63n24, 84n74, 126n157 Toleration Act (1689): 64n29, 123n143 toleration of religious difference see under religion and the church, Sinophilia and religious toleration Tories: 5, 11, 37, 87n10, 104, 107n85, 108–09, 127n160 Townshend, Charles, second viscount: 12–13, 20, 21 Traité de la raison humaine traduit de l’Anglois (Clifford, trans. Popple, 1682): 65 Trajan, Roman emperor: 142 transmigration of souls: 62, 68–69 Treason Act (1351): 493n22 Treatise of Humane Reason (Clifford, 1674; French transl. 1682): 46n97, 65 Trenchard, Anne, second wife of Thomas Gordon: 5n11, 35, 139, 140 Trenchard, John ‘An Analogy Between Ancient Heathen­ ism and Modern Priestcraft’ (1720): 67n36 as co-author with Gordon: xxi, 5, 11, 15–17, 20, 22–26, 139 death of: 13, 16, 39 Gordon as amanuensis of: xxin24, 36 marriage of Gordon to widow of: 5, 35, 139 political philosophy of: 30–32, 109n95, 132n178 relationship between church and state, views on: 76n54 Septennial Act (1715)and: 14n30

INDEX see also Gordon, Thomas, and John Trenchard, writings of Trevelyan, Sir John: 139, 140 Trevelyan, Sir Walter Calverley: xviiin16, xxiii, 139–40, 288n20, xxiiin30 The Trew Law of Free Monarchies ( James I, 1598): 130, 510n11, 512–13 The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus (Sherlock, 1729): xvi Triple Crown, papal: 186 Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus ( James I, 1608): 553 The True Crisis (Gordon, 1730): 14, 32n67, 105n79 The True Interest of Holland (de la Court, 1702): 31 The True Nature of imposture fully displayed in the life of Mahomet (Prideaux, 1697): 63 The Tryal of William Whiston […] (Gordon, 1734/1739/1740): xiii–xvii, 40–41, 64, 73 Turrettini, Jean-Alphonse: 10 Twelve Discourses Political and Historical (Radicati, 1730): 34 Twysden, Sir Roger, second baronet: 105 Tyrrell, James: 105n79, 107n86, 113, 114n112, 278(a) Tyssot de Patot, Simon: 53 Ulster, Richard de Burgh, earl of: 455n4 Ulster, William de Burgh, earl of: 297n24 union of the Scottish and English crowns: 131n174, 529–30, 535, 550, 554–63 Unitarians: 63, 64, 76, 81n64, 82 United Provinces see Netherlands universal suffrage: 32–33 Upon Persecution and the Natural Ill Tenden­cy of Power in the Clergy, occasioned by the Trial and tragical death of Lord Cobham (Gordon, unpub.): xviii, 11, 139–40 Urban II, pope: 120, 173n2, 179, 182, 187n11 Urban IV, pope: 431n48 Utrecht, Peace of: 9, 14 Victor IV, antipope: 288n19 Vindication of the Quakers (Gordon, 1732): 40 Virgil: 87, 163–64 Virginia, colony of: 540n35, 565

625

Virtue Transformed: Political Argument in England, 1688–1740 (Burtt, 1992): 28 Voltaire: xxi, 49, 53, 59–60n20, 75n51, 76, 109n95 Vorstius, Conradus: 130n173, 513, 514n14 Vossius, Gerard: 49 Vossius, Isaac: 49 voting rights: 32–33 vox populi, appeals to: 127 Voyage Round the World (Gemelli-Careri, 1699): 71 Voyages et aventures de Jacques Massé (Tyssot de Patot, 1714): 53 Wake, William, archbishop of Canterbury: 10, 108 Waldensians: 113, 287n18 Waleran the German: 351 Wales Edward II and: 453 Henry I and: 210, 214 Henry II and: 253, 296 Henry III and: 341, 345, 350, 361, 362, 364, 369, 380–81, 385–87, 416n43, 417, 418–19, 432 James I and: 529, 561 Stephen of Blois and: 226, 228 William II and: 177, 189 Wallingford/Winchester, Treaty of (1153): 246–47 Walpole, Robert Gordon’s criticism of: xxii Gordon’s History of England and: 103n70, 109–10 Gordon’s translations of Tacitus and Sallust and: 85, 86, 89, 93–94 in Gordon’s The Conspirators: 21 on Locke: 29 Peerage Bill opposed by: 14 press power, awareness of: 35–37 religious policy of: 37–39, 73, 80n62 rise to power of: 19–20 sinecure conferred upon Gordon by government of: xxiii, 36–37 Sinophilia and: 51–53, 73, 80n62, 84 Sunderland/Stanhope ministry and: 12–13, 19–20 The Thoughts of a Member of the Lower House (1719): 14

INDEX

626

Walsingham, Sir Francis: 507 Walter d’Eynsham: 336 Wanley, Humphrey: 112–13 Warburton, William: xxivn33 Warning to the Whigs (Gordon, 1744): 32–33n67, 43–44n91, 86n24 Waterland, Daniel: 66n35 Watts, John: 68n38 Webb, John: 51n6 Werenfels, Samuel: 10 Wesley, Charles: 45n95 Wesley, John: 45n95 Westphalia, Peace of (1648): 566n69 Whigs Alberoni and: 9 Gordon’s classical translations and: 78n60, 85, 99 Gordon’s History of England and:  107–10, 114n112, 132n178 Lockean influence on: 25–26, 29 Moyle and: 11 ‘Old Whigs’: 37–38, 132n179 political affiliations of Gordon and: 5–6, 11, 35 printers affiliated with: 6 Sunderland/Stanhope ministry: 12–14, 19–20 see also Walpole, Robert Whiston, John: xv, 4n5, 5n12, 86n8, 94n41, 139 Whiston, William: xiii, xv–xvii, 64 White Ship, wreck of (1120): 211n13, 213–14, 221n1 Whitgift, John, archbishop of Canterbury: 520, 523 Wilkins, John: 7 William I the Conqueror/the Norman, king of England: 103–04, 105n79, 107, 110, 113n104, 117–19, 132, 141–68, 169–70, 247–48, 318 William II Rufus, king of England: 120, 121n133, 161n11, 169–92, 193–96, 229n8 William III of Orange, king of England: 11, 84n74, 108, 110, 115, 300 William Adelin, duke of Normandy: 210, 211n13, 213, 221n1 William Clito (Crito), son of Robert Curthose, duke of Normandy: 208, 211, 217

William d’Ypres: 241 William de Breteuil: 194n1 William de Tracy (William Tracey): 283 William of Blois, son of Stephen of Blois: 246–47, 250–52 William of Champagne, ‘White Hands’, archbishop of Sens: 275, 276, 289 William of Corbeil, archbishop of Canterbury: 200n6, 222–23 William of Hainault: 477n7 William of Malmsbury: 113, 119n118, 164, 176n3 William of Savoy, bishop of Valence: 365, 373, 424–25 William the Lion, king of Scotland: 307, 309, 311 Wilson, Arthur: 113, 505, 541 Wilson, Thomas, bishop of Sodor and Man: 16–17 Winchelsey, Robert, archbishop of Canterbury: 455 Winter, Thomas: 542n38 Witenagemot: 107, 110, 116 witches and witchcraft: 130n173, 510–11, 537 Wolff, Christian: 49 Wolsey, Cardinal Thomas: 110: 297 Woolston, Thomas: xvi: 38n82 Worden, Blair: 33n68, 83n71, 90n27 Wotton, William: 110–11 Wright, John: 542n38 York, Ann Mortimer, duchess of: 478(a) York, Richard, father of Edward IV, duke of: 478(a) Yorke, Sir Philip, later Lord Hardwicke: 38n82, 39 Young, Edward: 6n15 Zenger, John Peter: 23 Zevi, Sabbatai: 81 Zuckert, Michael: 25, 26

EARLY EUROPEAN RESEARCH

All volumes in this series are evaluated by an Editorial Board, strictly on academic grounds, based on reports prepared by referees who have been commissioned by virtue of their specialism in the appropriate field. The Board ensures that the screening is done independently and without conflicts of interest. The definitive texts supplied by authors are also subject to review by the Board before being approved for publication. Further, the volumes are copyedited to conform to the publisher’s stylebook and to the best international academic standards in the field. Titles in Series Sociability and its Discontents: Civil Society, Social Capital, and their Alternatives in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ed. by Nicholas Eckstein and Nicholas Terpstra (2009) Diseases of the Imagination and Imaginary Disease in the Early Modern Period, ed. by Yasmin Haskell (2012)

In Preparation Writing Royal Entries in Early Modern Europe, ed. by Marie-Claude Canova-Green, Jean Andrews, and Marie-France Wagner Friendship and Social Networks in Scandinavia c. 1000–1800, ed. by Jón Viðar Sigurðsson and Thomas Småberg