The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 (435 page)
Read The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 Online
Authors: David Hume
[k]7th September, See Rush. vol. vi. p. 537, 544, 547.
[n]Rush. vol. vi. p. 680, 783.
[s]Dugdale, p. 119. Rush. vol. vi. p. 748.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
423
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[t]Clarendon, vol. iii. p. 442. Rush. vol. vi. p. 566. Whitlocke, p. 77.
[u]Clarendon, vol. iii. p. 444. Rush. vol. vi. p. 569, 570. Whitlocke, p. 94.
[w]Clarendon, vol. iii. p. 449. Whitlocke, p. 79.
[y]Journ. 13th of February, 1643.
[k]Life of the D. of Newcastle, p. 40.
[m]Rush. part 3. vol. ii. p. 633.
[n]Rush. vol. vi. p. 632. Whitlocke, p. 89.
[o]Clarendon, vol. v. p. 507, 508. See Warwick.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
424
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[w]Rush. vol. vi. p. 676. Clarendon, vol. v. p. 497. Sir Ed. Walker, p. 31.
[x]Rush. vol. vi. p. 699, &c. Whitlocke, p. 98. Clarendon, vol. v. p. 524, 525. Sir
Edw. Walker, p. 69, 70, &c.
[e]Rushworth, vol. vi. p. 364.
[f]Whitlocke, p. 114, 115. Rush. vol. vii. p. 6.
[h]Whitlocke, p. 118. Rush. vol. vii. p. 7.
[k]Clarendon, vol. v. p. 629, 630. Whitlocke, p. 141.
[n]Dugdale, p. 737. Rush. vol. vi. p. 850.
[p]Whitlocke, p. 111. Dugdale, p. 748.
[q]His words are, “As for my calling those at London a parliament, I shall refer thee
to Digby for particular satisfaction; this in general: If there had been but two besides myself, of my opinion, I had not done it; and the argument, that prevailed with me was, that the calling did no ways acknowledge them to be a parliament; upon which condition and construction I did it; and no otherwise; and accordingly it is registered in the council books, with the council’s unanimous approbation.” The king’s cabinet opened. Rush, vol. vi. p. 943.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
425
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[r]Whitlocke, p. 121. Dugdale, p. 758.
[s]Such love of contradiction prevailed in the parliament, that they had converted
Christmas, which, with the churchmen, was a great festival, into a solemn fast and humiliation; “In order,” as they said, “that it might call to remembrance our sins and the sins of our forefathers, who, pretending to celebrate the memory of Christ, have turned this feast into an extreme forgetfulness of him, by giving liberty to carnal and sensual delights.” Rush. vol. vi. p. 817. It is remarkable, that, as the parliament abolished all holy days, and severely prohibited all amusement on the sabbath; and even burned, by the hands of the hangman, the king’s book of sports; the nation found, that there was no time left for relaxation or diversion. Upon application, therefore, of the servants and apprentices, the parliament appointed the second Tuesday of every month for play and recreation.
Rush.
vol. vii. p. 460.
Whitlocke,
p.
247. But these institutions, they found great difficulty to execute; and the people were resolved to be merry when they themselves pleased, not when the parliament should prescribe it to them. The keeping of Christmas holy-days was long a great mark of malignancy, and, very severely censured by the commons.
Whitlocke,
p. 286. Even minced pyes, which custom had made a Christmas dish among the churchmen, was regarded, during that season, as a profane and superstitious viand by the sectaries; though at other times it agreed very well with their stomachs. In the parliamentary ordinance too, for the observance of the sabbath, they inserted a clause for the taking down of may-poles, which they called a heathenish vanity. Since we are upon this subject, it may not be amiss to mention, that, besides setting apart Sunday for the ordinances, as they called them, the godly had regular meetings on the Thursdays for resolving cases of conscience, and conferring about their progress in grace. What they were chiefly anxious about, was the fixing the precise moment of their conversion or new birth; and whoever could not ascertain so difficult a point of calculation, could not pretend to any title to saintship. The profane scholars at Oxford, after the parliament became masters of that town, gave to the house, in which the zealots assembled, the denomination of
Scruple Shop:
The zealots, in their turn, insulted the scholars and professors; and, intruding into the place of lectures, declaimed against human learning, and challenged the most knowing of them to prove that their calling was from Christ. See Wood’s Fasti Oxonienses, p. 740.
[a]Rush. vol. vi. p. 850. Dugdale, p. 737.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
426
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[d]Rush. vol. vi. p. 838, 839.
[NOTE [FF]]
That Laud’s severity was not extreme, appears from this fact, that he caused the acts or records of the high commission court to be searched, and found that there had been fewer suspensions, deprivations, and other punishments, by three, during the seven years of his time, than in any seven years of his predecessor Abbot; who was notwithstanding in great esteem with the house of commons.
Troubles and
trials of Laud,
p. 164. But Abbot was little attached to the court, and was also a puritan in doctrine, and bore a mortal hatred to the papists. Not to mention, that the mutinous spirit was rising higher in the time of Laud, and would less bear controul.
The maxims, however, of his administration were the same that had ever prevailed in England, and that had place in every other European nation, except Holland, which studied chiefly the interests of commerce, and France, which was fettered by edicts and treaties. To have changed them for the modern maxims of toleration, how reasonable soever, would have been deemed a very bold and dangerous enterprize. It is a principle advanced by president Montesquieu, that, where the magistrate is satisfied with the established religion, he ought to repress the first attempts towards innovation, and only grant a toleration to sects that are diffused and established. See l’Esprit des Loix, liv. 25. chap. 10. According to this principle, Laud’s indulgence to the catholics, and severity to the puritans, would admit of apology. I own, however, that it is very questionable, whether persecution can in any case be justifyed: But, at the same time, it would be hard to give that appellation to Laud’s conduct, who only enforced the act of uniformity, and expelled the clergymen that accepted of benefices, and yet refused to observe the ceremonies, which they previously knew to be enjoined by law. He never refused them separate places of worship; because they themselves would have esteemed it impious to demand them, and no less impious to allow them.
[i]It is not improper to take notice of a mistake committed by Clarendon, much to the
disadvantage of this gallant nobleman; that he offered the king, when his majesty was in Scotland, to assassinate Argyle. All the time the king was in Scotland, Montrose was confined to prison. Rush. vol. vi. p. 980.
[l]Clarendon, vol. iii. p. 380, 381. Rush. vol. vi. p. 980. Wishart, cap. 2.
[n]Clarendon, vol. v. p. 618. Rush. vol. vi. p. 982. Wishart, cap. 4.
[o]1st of September, 1644. Rush. vol. vi. p. 983. Wishart, cap. 5.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
427
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[p]11th of September, 1644. Rush. vol. vi. p. 983. Wishart, cap. 7.
[q]Rush. vol. vi. p. 985. Wishart, cap. 8.
[r]Rush. vol. vii. p. 228. Wishart, cap. 9.
[s]Rush. vol. vii. p. 229. Wishart, cap. 10.
[u]Rush. vol. vii. p. 229. Wishart, cap. 11.
[w]Rush. vol. vii. p. 126, 127.
[x]Dugdale, p. 7. Rush. vol. vi. p. 281.
[y]Rush. vol. vii. p. 52, 61, 62. Whitlocke, p. 130, 131, 133, 135. Clarendon, vol. v. p.
665.
[z]Rush. vol. vii. p. 18, 19, &c.
[d]Rush. vol. vii. p. 43. Whitlocke, p. 145.
[g]Clarendon, vol. iv. p. 656, 657. Walker, p. 130, 131.
[h]Clarendon, vol. iv. p. 658.
[i]Hearne has published the following extract from a manuscript work of Sir Simon
D’Ewes, who was no mean man in the parliamentary party. “On Thursday the 30th and last day of this instant June 1625, I went to Whitehall, purposely to see the queen, which I did fully all the time she sat at dinner. I perceiv’d her to be a most absolute delicate lady, after I had exactly survey’d all the features of her face, much enliven’d by her radiant and sparkling black eyes. Besides, her deportment among her women was so sweet and humble, and her speech and looks to her other servants so mild and gracious, as I could not abstain from divers deep fetched sighs, to consider, that she wanted the knowledge of the true religion.” See Preface to the Chronicle of Dunstable, p. 64.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
428
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[n]Clarendon, vol. iv. p. 690. Walker, p. 137.
[o]Clarendon, vol. iv. p. 695.
[r]These compositions were different, according to the demerits of the person: But by
a vote of the house they could not be under two years rent of the delinquent’s estate.
Journ. 11th of August 1648. Whitlocke, p. 160.
[u]Rush. vol. vii. p. 230, 231. Wishart, cap. 13.
[y]Guthry’s Memoirs. Rush. vol. vii. p. 232.
[z]Rush. vol. vii. p. 141. It was the same Astley, who, before he charged at the battle
of Edgehill, made this short prayer,
O Lord! thou knowest how busy I must be this
day. If I forget thee, do not thou forget me.
And with that rose up, and cry’d,
March
on, boys!
Warwic, p. 229. There were certainly much longer prayers said in the parliamentary army; but I doubt, if there was so good a one.
[a]Carte’s Ormond, vol. iii. No. 433.
[c]Rush. vol. vii. p. 215, &c.
[d]Ibid. vol. vii. p. 217, 219. Clarendon, vol. iv. p. 744.
[e]Rush. vol. vii. p. 249. Clarendon, vol. iv. p. 741.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
429
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[NOTE [GG]]
Dr. Birch has written a treatise on this subject. It is not my business to oppose any facts contained in that gentleman’s performance. I shall only produce arguments, which prove that Glamorgan, when he received his private commission, had injunctions from the king to act altogether in concert with Ormond. (1.) It seems to be implied in the very words of the commission. Glamorgan is empowered and authorised to treat and conclude with the confederate Roman catholics in Ireland. “If upon necessity any
(articles)
be condescended unto, wherein the king’s lieutenant cannot so well be seen in, as not fit for us at present publickly to own.” Here no articles are mentioned, which are not fit to be communicated to Ormond, but only not fit for him and the king publicly to be seen in, and to avow. (2.) The king’s protestation to Ormond, ought, both on account of that prince’s character, and the reasons he assigns, to have the greatest weight. The words are these, “Ormond, I cannot but add to my long letter, that, upon the word of a christian, I never intended Glamorgan should treat any thing without your approbation, much less without your knowledge. For besides the injury to you, I was always diffident of his judgment (though I could not think him so extremely weak as now to my cost I have found); which you may easily perceive in a postscript of a letter of mine to you.” Carte, vol.
