Images of Britain at the Anglo-Scottish Court, 1603

TmKING OF HEARTS:

JAMES AND 1, THE 'UNIONOF LOVE'

AND

IMAGES OF BRITAINAT THE ANGLO-SCOTTISHCOURT, 1603-1608

A thesis submitted to the Department of History in confomity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Queen's University Kingston, Ontario, Canada Apd, 1999

copyright O Joseph Brian Rochon, Apt31999 National Library Bibliothèque nationale 1+1 of,", du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue WelIington Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer OU copies of this thesis in microfq vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or eiectronic formats. la forme de microfiche/nlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son pemission. autorisation. In 1603, the union of the English and Scottish crowns in the person of James VI and I brought together two traditionally hostile nations. in an effort to ameliorate the problems of ruling this composite monarchy and to ensure peace in his new realms, the

King worked to fashion a reconstituted British nation. He directed much of his nation- building efforts at his court in Westminster and specificdy laboured to create a core of

Anglo-Scottish or British aristocrats. Not only was the court the centre of his visible world, but its members were to provide a mode1 for the rest of the nation to emulate.

Duriag the first five years of his English reign, the King and his pro-union agents tried to project the court and crown as distinctly British institutions.

In his efforts to forge an Anglo-Scottish "Union of Love" based on fiatemal sentiment and mutual affection, King James activefy pursued a number of integrationist policies. To eliminate a visual symbol of division, James proclaimed himself King of Great

Britaîn. He then worked to make Scots and Enghshmen naturd in both kingdoms so that they would possess the same Freedoms and privileges uiroughout Britain. Fhally, the

King encouraged Anglo-Scottish mariages in an attempt to increase the bonds of love between the two nations. Hoping to provide examples of the individual unions he wanted his subjects to embody, he personally orchestrated several high-profile maniages between leading Sconish and Enghsh figures at court.

Through the naturalisation of individual Scots and the promotion of Anglo-

Sconish marriages, James was able to give his Westminster court a genuinely British flavour. When he attempted to implement pro-British policies outside the court, however, he encountered a recalcitrant English House of Commons. Parochialist sentiments and

Scotophobia moved the Commons to resist most of the Iegaf changes that would have enabied James' vision to be reaiised beyond the bonds of the imperial court. In the course of researching and writing this thesis, I have incurred a great debt to Professor Paul Christianson. 1 wish to thank him for his encouragement, insight and patient supervision. 1 would also like to thank Professor Keith Brown of the University of St Andrews for some early suggestions and encouragement.

Speciai thanks is due to both the Department of History and the School of Graduate and Professional Studies for providing me with the financial support that made my research possible.

Finally, I wodd be remiss if 1did not achowledge the debt owed to Linda Barbon and Judy Wong whose shared coffee breaks helped me to work hitfully into the wee hours of the moming on more than a few occasions. CHAPTER1:

Introduction and Histonographical Overview...... 1

Precedence, Precedents and Propaganda: The Name of Britain and the Search for Status Equality...... 23

CHAPTERIII:

Naturalisation and Nationality, 1603- 1608...... -69

CHAPTER IV: "Tweene Scots and Engfish: who can wonder thed If he that marries kingdomes, manies men?" : Anglo-Scottish Marriage and British National Integration, 1604-08...... 102

Conclusion...... 130 CHAPTERI

Introduction and Historiographicd Overview

When James VI ascended to the throne of England in 1603, he becarne the derof

a composite monarchy. He became the sovereign of not only three kingdoms and one

principality, but the head of four nations. Long before he came to the English throne,

James had recognised the ~cultieshe wodd emounter as the derof a multi-national

date and conceived a unionist plan to aileviate some of the difficulties. In any state which

embraces more than one nation or ethnic group, problems of equality, precedence and

status equilibrium amongst the wmponent peoples are endemic. James suicerely believed that he could circumvent these inherent dificulties by uniMg the hearts of his subjects and forging a single nation fiorn four.

In his efforts to achieve a 'Union of Love', James first had to give his people a new

name. On the face of things, the English and Scottish nations would have to appear to

merge into one new nation: Britain. The King hoped that by chauging his royal style and working to alter the outward image of his kingdoms first, the substance of an enduring national and political union wodd surely follow. Foremost in his schemes to create an integrated British nation were notions of equality and precedence, or rather a desire to eliminate problems of precedence between the natives of his old and new kingdom.' With the names of Scotland and England put into oblivion, the issue of one nation's superiority

Ireland, which was considered a subordinated accessory of the English crown, was not represented in either the debates over political union or the discussion of national union. As it was added to the English monarch's patrimony through conquest, the çtatus of Ireland and its inbabitants was clearly not on the same Ievel as that of either England or Scutland. Ireland always ranked below Scotland and England in terrns of precedence and even James did not seem to consider its inhabitants worthy of inclusion in the new British nation he envisioned. kland wilI not, therefore, figureprominene in any of the following discussions. over another wodd be made irrelevant. He wanted to see his subjects evenhidy identifL themselves as members of a British nation and embrace each other fiaternally as equals.

He hoped that muhial love wodd develop over tirne to provide the emotional cernent needed to fuse the two nations together perrnanently.

To begin giving his dreams ofa national union corporeal form, James worked to fashion a British aristocracy at his London court. He used his prerogative to naturalise individual Scots when parliament proved reluctant to enact a comprehensive mutual naturalisation of Englïshmen and Scots; he encouraged and at times even orchestrated marriages between his Scottish and English followers; and he elevated Scots to serve as cultural mediators, helping to dispel myths of Scottish incivility. In ail of these efforts,

James sought to create a stahis balance at court between the Scottish and English members of his entourage. By making strides towards assimiiaiing the court to his British vision, he was working to effect a union of the two nations. James was always surrounded by the court and its members, so the court aristocracy was the logicd focus of his nation- building schemes.

The court aristocracy provides an especially attractive unit of analysis in an examination of Jacobean nation-building for several reasons. Not only are the sources related to the culture and activities of the aristocracy better donimented than for any other social group, but the aristocracy more than any other group can be observed to have possessed a collective awareness. John Modhas pointed out that it was only among the aristocracy, and perhaps the merchant strahim, that a real sense of national identity superseded parochial regional identifications. Only the literate segments of society, and particularly those with political agency, had access to the materials required both to form and maintain national identity2 The expansion of print culture in the Elizabethan era

continued through James' reign and collective awareness grew as those who shared in the

dissemination of propaganda increasingly conceived of themselves as part of a national

community.

Despite the focus on societal elites, this thesis ought not to be constmed as an

attempt at traditional 'top dom' history which has been so often maligned by many

contemporary young North Amencan historiam. While it could be argued that the court

aristocracy served as a reference group whose manners and mores served as models for

other social groups to emdate, this thesis will not atternpt to open that parîïcular

floodgate. Some sense of national identification certdy did trickle down, as it were, from the aristocracy to those of lower social stations, but the effects of this diffusion are

difficult to assess and beyond the sape of this thesis. Furthemore, to suggest that

generalisations about Anglo-Scomsh aristocratie integration could in any way be viably

aitributecl to the entirety of each nation wodd be to commit the dreaded ecological

- - pppp 'J. S. Morriii, "The Fashioning of Britain," in Steven G. ELLis and Sarah Barber, eds, Conquest and Union: Fasfrioning a British State, 1485-1725 (London: Longman, 1993, 13. For an aitemative view see Cynthia J. Neville, "Local Sentiment and the 'National' Enemy in Northern England in the Later Middle Ages," Journal of British Studies, 35 (October 1996), 319-437. Neville argues that in the Border region fiom the late thuteenth century through to the seventeenth cm*, the persistent pxeseace of "national" enemies shaped local seff-perceptions and that indMduaIs usuaiiy tended to identify themselves as either Scottisb or Enm. In fegai proceedings, the aliegkmce of individuais, or their "nationality", had pi significance and was frequently noted by royal agents in court records. Problerns of denization and the status of redent afiens also sharpened national distinctions in the border codes. In a slightiy dated and more generai meyof national developmeat in Europe, V. G. Kienian similariy recognises that the presence of a nationai enemy can often provide a strong Mpetus tomrd the development of national identity. He asserts that this dcvelopment &y oçcurs at ail levels of society and is a ''naturaln process in the graduai progress to~.ardsinevitable bourgeois revolution His persistent Whiggism might, however, Iead one to beiieve tbat his emphasis on the growth of national identity at the popular level is overstatd See V. G. Kiernan, "State and Nation in Western Ewpe," Past and Present, 3 1 (1965)- 20- 3 8- fdacy3 This work ought ùistead to be seen as a social, political, and cultural &tory of a particular social group. The aristocracy and, more specifically, the court aristocracy will comprise the essential units ofanalysis.

In view of the recent spate of historical writings on the ideas of British political integration and the foundations of the British national identity, a study of the integration of the two national aristocraties is particularly timely and relevmt. Almost two decades after

J. G. A. Pocock issued his plea for a new subject in 1975, a new generation of historians is now labouring to realise his vision; this study of the inchoate British aristocracy fits comfbrtably within the general trend towards more comprehensive and '~ntanocentic'~ interpretations of the history of the British Isles. h ''British History: A Plea for a New

Subject", Pocock cded for histonans of England Scotland, Wales and Ireland to write

'British history' by focusing on how events in the various wmponent parts of the British

Isles flowed together to make a singte historical experience. According to Pocock's new paradigm, "culture confIicts, the language barriers, the phenornena of the marches, the distinction between lowland and highland zones... aU join to rnake 'British history In a commentary on the plea, A J. P. Taylor, the target of rnuch of Pocock's criticism, chauvinistically defended Enghsh national history by arguing that Engiish and British

This is a problem of generalisation which occm when the characteristics of one unit of analysis are attn'buted to another unit of anaiysis. In this case, the wrongful attn'bution of national awareness to the entirety of the society when evidence of its display can oniy be found among members of an exclusive social group. David Hackett Fischer has provided us wifh another definition of this error. He explains that the ecological fdacy "occurç when classes are used which do not coincide with the variabIe king measured." The problem is most common in the presentation of statistical data, but it myaiso be found in any other study where the variables are taken hmone unit of analysis and applied to aaother. See David ffickett Fisher, Historians ' FalZacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: £kper Torchbooks, 1970), 1 19-120. ' 1 cannot recall having ever seen the word 'Bntanocentric' in print, but its meaning is seifevident and 1 will use it because no other suitable tenu exists. history were essentialiy the sarne thing and that the "difference is a triviality interesthg only to nationalist ~ranks."~To the aged Taylor, the difrence between Brïtain and

England was oniy semantic: the language and dominant culture of Britain were and are

English, therefore, Britain was and is ~n~lish.~Several other historians at the time7 including Gordon ~onaldson,'lauded Pocock's efforts and recognised the need for a new subject, but few immediately took heed of his suggestions. It was not until the next decade that a few histonans began to employ his British paradigm with consistency. Most contemporary histonans have remained reluctant tu eschew English national history in favour of the new Bntain oriented history, but a few hardy literary pioneers have blazed a new historiographical trail for early rnodernists and modernists alike to tread.

One of the first attempts to pick up the gauntlet thrown down by Pocock came with Bruce Galloway's ground breaking work on the regal union in 1986. The (Inion of

EngZand and Scotld, 1603-1608 can be seen as a modest attempt to integrate the national histories of England and Scotland with reference to a specific issue which obviously involved both natiord The result was not merely another history of Anglo-

Scottish political relations, however, but a genuine attempt to get at the 'British' nature of

Anglo-Scottish interactions. Galloway ' s study of the regal union contended that James sought to create mity between his northern and southem subjects based on diminished

J. G. k Poco& lBntish History: A Plea for a New Subject," Journal of Modern History. 17 (1975), 60345,609. 5 A. J. P. Taylor in comments portion of Ibid., 622. Dr. Taylor also nispiayed cuitural insensitivity in 6is rehisal to abaudon the label 'Scotch' for lhe preferred term of 'Scottish. ' nid.,662-23. ? Gordon Donaidson also dâended the validity of Scottish national history at the same time. See the comments portion of "Britisfi History: A Plea for a New Subjtxt," 623-24. Bruce Galloway, The Union of England and ScotZmd. 1603-1608 (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1986). parochialism and a renewed concept of ~ritishness.~Similar themes of Anglo-Scottish incorporation were central to Bnan Levack' s The Fonnoton of the British Stute:

EngImui, Sco~Imdund the U~zim,1603-1 70 7, published the foilowing year. Levack explored the various proposals for Anglo-Scottish union in the seventeenth century with a particular emphasis on the problerns encountered by unionists. Hïs well-balanced study devoted chapters to political, ecclesiastical, econornic and national aspects of the regal union.'0 British aspects comprised an important element of the work and Levack not only explored the foundations of the British state, but also looked at efforts to found a British nation. 'l

Perhaps the most signincant overd contibution to the mainstreamhg of British history came with the publication of Conrad Russell's The FaIl of the British Monmchies,

1637-42 in 1991.12This seminal work on the 'Bitish Civil Wars' has heiped to establish a new 'Bntanocentric' heworkof historicai interpretation which many subsequent historians have adopted. One of the greatest values of Russell's work is that its emphasis on the three kingdoms has increased historians' appreciation of the British dimension of

9 In an effort to reveat how James sought to blur the national distinctions between his Scottish and English subjects, Galloway points to the fiunous 'Cai\Inls Case,' orchestrated by the King in 1607 to show that subjects of the same monarch could legally hold land in any of his realms. See Galloway, The Union of England and Scotfand, 148-57. William A. Ferguson's ScotIand's Relations with England: a Survey to 1707 Winburgh:John Donald, 1977) is probably SUone of the best explorations of Anglo-Scottish political exchanges fÏom a pre-British history perspective. 10 Brian P. Leva* The Formation ofthe British State: England, Scotland and the hion, 1603-1707 (Mord: Clarendon, 1987). Il Levack points out that the "attempts to unite England and Scotland involved two closely relatai but nevertheless distinct undertakings: the creation ofa British state and the building of a British nation" The distinction is an important one and few historians before or since Levack have delved very deeply into the national aspects of the regai union. See fiid., 169. I2 Conrad Ruaeli, The Fa11 of the British Monwchies, 1637-1642 (Mord: Clarendon Press, 199 1). On the titie page of this book Russell is actually descrii as a "Professor of British History". It should be noted here that J. S. Morrili edited a compilation of essays on the BrÎtish dimensions of the Covena~ltiug movement in 1990, but the more specialised nature of its subject bas meant that its impact bas aot been as eariy Stuart history. Its relevance to this particular study is not in the specific issues it addresses - it details events occuning during the reign of Charles I - but rather the general historical approach which it applied. Since the publication of this work, the 1990s has witnessed a proliferation of British oriented historical writings. Most of the new British historians double as national historians of either Scotland or Ireland, however, and

Anglocentric tendencies have antinued to grip many historians of Tudor-Stuart

England. l3

Recognising the reluctance of many contemporary histonms to appreciate or consider the British dimensions of English history, Steven EUis and John Mord have repeatedly re-issued the plea for a new interpretative fiamework for the history of the

British Mes. '' Singluig out the recalcitrance of Enghsh national historians, Mord asserted that "the EngIish are the least interested parties in thinking through, articulating,

[and] above ail redefining the relationship of the component parts of what had become the multiple or composite kingdom of the house of Stuart." Many English historians still recklessly use the terms Britain and England interchangeably and the motivation for them to mend their ways is not great.15 English historians continue to work within a historical

profound as Russeil's slightly later work. See J. S. Mod, The Scottish National Covenant in ifs British Context (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990). 13 The tenn "Tudor-Smn, used by many supposeci hiçtorians of early modern Britain to ident@ themselves, is in itself an AngIocentric term: there was of course no Tudor ScoUand. 'Britanmntric' historhm such as Jenny Wormaid, Keith Brown and Neil Cuddy amid be identined as Anglo-Scottish historiaus; Steven EUis is pWyan Irish national historian, while John Morrill and Conrad Russell are virtuaUy alone among English national historians in their insistence on a British fiamework of historicd anaiysis. 14 Steven EUis, '"Not mere English' : The British Perçpective, 1400- 1650," Histoty Today, 38 (Deamber 1988), 41-48; 'The Concept of British History," in EUand Barber, eds, Conquest and Union, 1-7; and Mord, "The Fashioning of Britab," 8-39. " Mod,'The Fashioning of Britain," 13. This echoes sentiments expressed by Pocodc in bis origrnal plea. Pocodc wrote that the typical Anglocentric historian is likely to resist altering his or her interpretative framework because "in a situation of cultural pludism and partial domination iike that we establishment with a long and healthy tradition of putthg England at the centre of every

discussion; Irish, Scottish and Welsh elements tend usually to be considered only when

they directly affect events in England. One particular historical area which has proved an

exception in the last decade, receiving much attention fkom historians of various national

interests, is the British microcosm that was the early Stuart court.

A number of recent historians have re-evaluated the reign of King lames VI and 1

and argued that a desire for imperid iinity, based on a concept of Britishness, coloured

many of his political activities. Jmes sought to integrate the elites of England and

Scotland by creating a balance of power at court. Such examinations have marked a shift

in emphasis fiom older shidies which, until the last decade, tended to ignore or distort the

presence of the Scots at the Jacobean Court. Generations of Anglocentric historians have

fded to appreciate the Scottish perspective and viewed the foreign aristocrats negatively

and simplisticaily as corrupt outsiders. Few attempts were made to understand the role of

the Scots at court; historians simply attributed their presence to an insensitive hgwho

sought to surround himself with foreign place seekers and greedy 'carpet baggers.' In the

1990s several students of both Scottish and British history have begun to re-examine the

traditional views of James's English court and the place that Scots held there. Notions of

an English court &er 1603 have been supplanted by new concepts of an Angfo-Scottish

or British irnperial court.

Traditionally, historians of the aristocracy at the early Stuart court have tended to write largely withui the fiarnework of English national histoqt Studies of court cuiture and politics, therefore, have been somewhat England-oriented and problematic. The first are considering, the history which he is inviteci to reassess is not only the history as seen by the dominant problem has been one of omission or neglect. With the emphasis on the English peerage, outsiders at court, such as the Scots, have tended to be overlooked or rnargïnalised.

Typical of the Anglocentric pattern of interpretation was Charles Mayes who wrote extensively on the deof peerages. In his discussions of the inflation of honours in both

Ireland and England, he focused primarily on the "unpleasing spectacle of nile by favorites."16 What seemed to be a personal disdain for the figure of Buckingham ofien overshadowed his arguments and a sigtilficant mention of the Scottish aristocracy at court was notably absent. In his examination of the sale of peerages, Mayes offered ody a few casual references to the role played by Scots as patronage brokers and, in doing so, he oflen neglected to mention the fad that the dispensers were indeed Scottish. The names of Lord Hay, the Earl of Somerset, and the Duke of Richmond were mentioned at various times without their Scottish origim being revealed. l7 One must conclude that Mayes thought that their nationality did not warrant mentioning.

In later studies of England's aristocracy, Lawrence Stone and M. L. Bush have made similar omissions. In An Open Elite?, Stone and Fawtier Stone discussed the vertical mobility withk the elite, but neglected the horizontal gateways of entry into

England's peerage. They focused on the social mobility of Englishmm (and women) climbing or descendii the social ladder and rnarginalised the entry of outside "elites," such as Scots, into the English n~bility'~Bush also atternpted to discuss developments

culture; it is actually the history of the dominant culture itseif." See Pocûck, "British History," 612. 16 Charles R Mayes, "The Early Stuarts and the Irish Peerage," English Historical Review, 73 (April 19581,227-51; The Sale of Peerages in Eariy Stuart England," Journal ofModern Histow, 29 (1957), 21. 17 Mayes, The Sale of Peerages in Early Stuart England," 23-28. le Lawrence Stone and Jeanne C. Fawtïer Stone, An Open Elite?: England ISJO-1800 (Mord: Clarendon Press, 1984). witithin the Eogiïsh aristocracy over a period oftime and in cornparison to its continental counterparts. l9 Missing fiom his study, however, was any substantial discussion of how the English aristocracy related to its northem counterpart. Cornparisons were drawn with continental nobilities, including those of Prussia and France, but not with that of Scotland.

Scatland was almost exclusively mentioned in relation to the impact which the Anglo-

Scomsh wars had on the shaping of the structure of the English nobility in the late middle ages." The entry of foreign Scots into the peerage and the role that the Anglo-Scuttish peace had on the English nobility was not discussed. The problern of neglect has not entirely been an Anglocentric one, however, and it shouid be noted that until fairly recently, even Scottish historians tended to overiook the si@cance of Scottish Jacobean courtiers. Scholars wrïting about Scottish national history have tended to favour discussions of the more heroic and patriotic Covenanters who came later.21

The second problem of Angiocentric interpretation has been an assessrnent of

Scottish courtiers based on an uncritical acceptance ofthe EngIish attitudes expressed by

Jacobean and Caroline polemicists. The literary legacy of the Eart of Clarendon and other contemporary writers who wrote contemptuously of the "parasitical, redundant" Scots has been enduring. Keith Brown has argued that such negative Lnages of Scottish courtiers have stuck and that the impressions of seventeenth century writers have been too readily adopted by English historians in the twentieth century.= Stone seems a good example of

'' M. L. Bush, The Engiish Aristocracy.- A Comparative Synthesis (Manchester: Manchester University Ejress, L984), 2. 'O ibid, 50,67, 103, 113-15. " Keith M. Brown, "Courtiers and Cavaliers: SeMce, ..giicisation and Loyaity hong the Royalist Nobility," in John Morrill, ed., The Scottish National Covenant in ifsBritish Context (Edinburgh: Edinburgù University Press, 1990). 155-56. lbid, 155-56. this tendency. He drew his descriptions ofthe Scots nom conternporary accounts which he accepted too undcally. In his infiequent references to the Scots, he focused on their disproportionate share of royal bounty and his tone was decidedly unôivourable.

According to Stone, between 1603 and 1628, Scottish favountes received alrnost a third of the total currency dispensed by the crown:

There is thus some justification for the irritation of Engiish peers at this invasion of highly favoured carpet-baggers from the north.. .. It was not merely a case of blowing up a handfiil of favourites into English dukes and earts, but a rescuing nom pemuy of a mob of 'beggarly blewcaps' who had ridden down hopefully with the King on their lean horses in 1603 .=

Such views of the Scots were cornmonplace in histoncal discourses until the 1990s when revisionists such as Jenny Wonnald, Neil Cuddy and Keith Brown began to reassess the role of Scottish aristocrats at the early Stuart court." The impact of their works has seriously wounded the Anglocentric historicai behemotk but the beast has not yet perished. As recently as 1993, Brown still felt the need to issue a cdfor a more sympathetic approach to studying Scots at court. He rejected Stone's description stating that: 'ke need to revise the view of the Scottish courtier as nothing more than a poor, money-grabbing carpet-bagger, an Engiish racial stereorype that has endured almost for

23 Lawrence Stone, The Crisis of the Arisfocracy, 1558- 16-11 (Mord: Clarendon Press, 1965), 376. 24 Keith Brown has exîensively stndied the 'Anglicisation' of the ScoWarïstocracy during the reigas of both James VI and 1 and Charles 1. See especially Keith M. Brown, "Courtiers and Cavaliers"; 'The Nobility of Jambean Scotland, 1567-1625," History Today, 34 (Dec 1984), 14-20; The Sconish Aristocracy: Angiicization and the Court, 1603-38," The Historical Journal, 36 (1993), 543-76. Neil Cuddy bas producd a number of articles on James' entourage with a parîicular emphasis on the Scottish domimted Bedchamber. See Neil Ciincfy, "AngIo-Scottish Union and the Court of James 1, 1603-1625," Transactions of the Royal Historical Sbcieîy, 39 (L989), 107-24; and The Revival of the Entourage: the Bedchamber of James 1, 1603- 1625," in David Starkey, ed., The English Court: From the Wars of the Roses Io the Civil War (London: L~ngmag1987), 173-225. Jenny Wormald has written much on James VI and 1 with a particular focus on the difEcdties he encountered as the derof a rnulti-national composite monarchy. See especiaily Jenq Worrnald, "James VI, James I and the Identity of Britain," in Brendan Bradshaw and John Morrill, eds., The British Probfem, c. 15.34-1 707: State Formation in the Atlantic Archipelago (London: MacMilbn, L996), 148-17 1; "James VI and r: Two Kings or One?" four centuries."= His plea has been heeded by many contemporary historians and a plethora of British oriented writings bas recently emerged to challenge traditional

England-dominated interpretations of the history of the British Ides. Several collections of essays have been published in the Iast five years which address the need both for a more integrated history ofthe three kingdoms and a more sympathetic approach to the study of the non-English peoples of Bntain; central to many of these works have been the politics and culture of the eady Jacobean court .26

In the 1WOs, many historians have begun seriously to re-evaluate the Jacobean court and are placing a new emphasis on the importance of regal union and British integration. Historim such as Keith Brown, Martin Butler, Maurice Lee, Jr., R. Malcolm

Smuts, and Jemy Woddhave & attempted to look at Jacobean Britain in a wider

European context, examining the problems related to either political or national integration in multiple-nation monarchies." Smuts has examined the Jacobean court through a study of its visual culture and has concluded that it was a cosrnopolitan centre

History, 68 (1983), 187-207; "The union of 1603," in Roger Mason, ed, Scots and Britons: Scottish Political Thou@ and the Union of1603 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19%). 17-40. zs Brown, 'nie Scottish Aristocracy," 575. See also "British History: A Sceptical Comment," in Ebnald G. Asch, ed,Three Kingdoms -A Common History?: England Scotfmd, Ireland and British History, c 1600- 1920 (Bochum: Universit3tsverIag Brockmeyer, 1993). ?d Brendan Bradshaw and John Mornll, eds., The British Problem, c. 1534-1 707: State Formation in the Atlmtic Archipelago (London: MacMillan, 1996); Steven G. Ellis anci Sarah Barùer, eds., Conquest and L'nion: Fashioning a British Stute. 1485-1725 (London:Longman, 1995); Roger Mason, d,Scots and Britons: Scottish Political Thought and the Union of 160.3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); R Malcolm Smuts, ed., The SIuart Court and Europe: Essays in Politics and Political Culture (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1996); John R Young, Celtic Dimensions of the British Civil ?Vars (Edinburgh: John Donaid, 1997). " Keith M. Brown, "The vanishing emperor: British kingship and its decline, 1603-1707," in Mason, eà,Scots and Britons, 58-87; Martin Butler, The invention of BAtain and the eariy Stuart masque," in Smuts, ed., The Stuart Court and Europe, 84-5; Maurice Lee, Jr., "Scotiand, the union and the i&a of a 'GeneTai Crisis'," in Mason, ed,Skots and Brilons, 41-57; R Malcolm Sm-, "Art and the material culture of majesty in early Stuart Englan&" in Smuts, ed., The Stuart Court and Europe, 86-1 12; Wodd, meunion of 1603," 17-40. with diverse ethnic elernentsz8 Brown has similarty chdenged the ideas that the early

Stuart court was an exclusively English one, or that all foreignen were necessarily assimrlated: "this was a British imperial court in which Scottish and Irish elites constituted a sizeable muiority, and their impact ought to be recognised at least as much as the second-rate English poets and royal servants who receive so much attention fiom historians." " In his denunciation of Anglocentnc interpretations of the court, Brown even went so fàr as to state that "between 1603 and 1625 the court was more Scottish than English in personnel and style."30 0sviews, while perhaps exaggerated, reveal a trend among historians to provide a more consciously inclusive assessrnent of the Scots' role at coud'

Ln recent studies of the imrnediate post-union period, historias have also examined James VI and I's vision of Britain and his attempts to integrate the Scottish and

English nobilities. Scholariy debate has centred around the King's motives for integration and several interpretations have been presented with respect to where his national loyaity resided. Some historians have expressed doubts about the sincerity of the King's arguments in favour of accepting a united British sense of nationality founded on equality between the nations. Brown has questioned the King's cornmitment to an ethnicdy egalitarian Britain and argued that : ''James imagined an imperid British monarchy presiding over a powerfùl Protestant state in which Scotland would be assimilated to

28 Smuts, "Art and the materid cuiture of majesty in early Stuart England," 86-87. 39 Brown, "Courtiers and Cavaliers," 156-57. For the quotaîion see Brown, The Scuttish Aristocracy," 575. 30 Keith M. Brown, Kingdom or Province? Scotland and the Regal Union, 1603-1 715 (London: Macmillan, 1992), 11. " Jenny Wormald ahmote that after the first decade of James' English de,"the English Capital and the English Court, as weU as, to an extent, the Engiish govenunent- had benmade Anglo-Scottish," Se Jenny Wormdd, "James VI, James 1and the Identity of Britah," 165. England through a union of parliaments, govenunent, iaws, churches and peoples.'"2 He

has claimed that James encouraged a sense of English superiority which found expression

in the English polemics written in favour of the union.33 Adopting an opposite view,

Wormald has argued that James felt great "Scottish pride" and that he genuinely believed

in the equality and ''mightine~s~~of the two nations." She has questioned his cornmitment to Bntain as weli, however, and has argued that he was hst and foremost a Scottish king who sou& to use Brîtishness as a "smokescreen" in an effort to add England and Ireland to ~cotland." Despite their diering views on James's prhaiy interests, both historians agreed that he sought to create harmony between his English and Scomsh subjects and that he genuinely wanted them to accept each other in a fiatemal union.36 Wherever the

King's national attachments lay, Wormald aptly concluded that four distinct nations existed and James' promotion of a new 'British' nation only caused c~nfusion.~'Indeed,

she concluded: "James never did in any real sense become king of Britain. In so far as his role cm be defined, he was king of dl, and king of ea~h."~~She suggested that neither

Scotsmen nor Englishrnen codd be expected to embrace the new ideals of a British identity if they could not even grasp what that identity meant.

Despite James' propagation of a Britain fiee fiom ethnic division, his nobles did not share his vision. Butler has revealed that the English eiite tended to view union fiom a

Brown, Kingdom or Province, 79. 33 Ibid., 80. Perhaps Brown shodd have rad more of îhese polemics: most are far from king Anglocentric, but are rather obsequious and amenable to James' ideais of a Bntain founded on equality. See Bruce R Galioway and Brian P. Levack, eds. me Jacobean Union: Six Tracts of 1604 (Edinburgh: Scottish History Society, 1985). 34 Jenny Wormald, "James VI, James 1and the Identity of Britaiq" 160-62. '' Ibid, 159. 36 Brown, Kingdom or Province?, 9-10; Womald, "James VI, James I and the Identity of Bntain," 149- 50, 37 Wodd,"James VI, James I and the tdenîity of Britain," 15 1-55. xenophobic perspective and expected to assimilate the Scots; some forcehlly rejected any notion of an equal partnership.3g Many did not work actively in opposition, however, but simply refused to co-operate ui any activities that would have faciltated integration or assimilation. Brown argued that whde James hoped to develop a new British nobility, he was disappointed as national eiites remained distinct and resolutely resisted as~imilation.~

James encouraged intennarriage between the two nobilities, but many Scots seemed uninterested. Scomsh nobles preferred to take Scottish brides in their fitmankges and only after succession to a Scotcish heir was semed did they nodytake a second or third wife who was ~n~lish.''Perhaps more surprisingly, most Scots did not appear interested in gaining English titles; in a twenty-two year reign marked by a stagge~g innation of honours, James elevated only seven Scots to the English peerage.42 Brown concluded that most Scots remained Scotocentric, resisting integration, and when they profited fiom offices and patronage in England, they chose to invest in Scottish estates."

With the revelation that Scottish nobles did not actively seek English titles or English wives, the place of these nobles at court has been re-examined; historians have attempted to interpret the role of Scots at court from the perspective that such courtiers rernained perpetual outsiders. The conflict s produced when James tried to integrate these outsiders into his court at London has become a central focus in the works of many cultural and political historians of the 1990s.

- -- . 3~ Wormald, The union of 1603," 3 3. 39 Butler, "The invention of Britain and the early Stuart masque," 70-71. 40 Brown, Kingdom or Province?, 47;"Iae Scottish Aristocracy," 574-76. 41 Brown, "Courtiers and Cavaliers," 179;Kingdom or Province?, 47;The SdshAristocracy." 574-76. "Brown. "The Scottish Aristocracy," 565-66. 43 Ibid., 563. In recent years, many historians have argued that the key to understanding early

Stuart politics can be found in an examination of James' attempts to impose British integrationist policies at court. There has been some keen debate, however, about the political significance of the Scottish nobility in London. In his early study on the regal union, Gailoway argued that there was no "flood of Scots" into the English governrnent der 1603. He claimed that contemporary English polemicists greatly exaggerated both the numbers of those who came south and theû subsequent Muence in government. He diminished the political role Scots played as patronage brokers and focused more on the resentment that their mere presence provoked." Brown agreed that the presence of the

Scots sparked resenmient fiom English courtiers, but he disagreed with Galloway's assessrnent of the Scots' activities. While previous histofians have tended to discuss the hostility towards the Scots in terms of the jealousy that James' favuuritism provoked,

Brown has ernphasised the importance of the Scots' roles as patronage brokers: "the Scots dominated the court for more than a decade after the union."45 Brown agreed that the

Scots never came to London in large numbers, however, and that &er 161 1, when

English protests obliged James to send many Scots home, the Scots who remained declined in kfl~ence.~~

Neil Cuddy has chalienged Brown's arguments and, in his studies of the royal household, has argued that the Scottish nobles, througb their domination of the King's bedchamber, played a crucial role in directing the nature of the political agenda until

44 Gaiioway, The Union oJEngland and Scotland, 17- l8,S5. 4s Brown, The Scottish Ansiocracy,'' 552. * ~bid.,54345, 553. 16 15!' Cuddy boldly asserted that "beiween 1603 and 16 15 the all-Scottish Bedchamber was the ubiquitous cause of parliamentq failure to settle the vitai issues of Union and finance, and the trigger issue of two tragically disastrous dissolution^."^^ Cuddy has emphasised the signiscance ofthe bedchamber and argued that while the Scots who attended James may have been few, they wielded a disproportionate amount of political clout. The Scottish hegemony at court lastecl until the meteoric rise of George Villiers afkr 16 15. The Scottish monopoly of the bedchamber and English resentment of this were key factors determinhg politicai activities both at court and in parliament. Cuddy has taken a revisionkt approach to studying the period and has argued that previous kstorians have negiected the sigdicance of the chamber because "James's English court has conventicmally been seen as dis~rderl~."~~He has posited that the English House of

Commons and James were engaged in a constant stmggle over the bedchamber and the

Scottish entourage attached to it. According to Cuddy, the debate over the union must also be seen in the context of this struggle and court intrigues against Scottish favourites shaped the nature of union discussion in parliament.50 James' protection of his Scottish retùiue led to feelings of "mutual distrust" between king and parliament; threats by the

Commons to the integrity of the bedchamber eventuaily provoked dissolutions in both

16 10 and 16 14.~'ln his discourses on the interplay between parliament and the Chamber,

Cuddy has stressed that lames's primary goal was the attainment of unity and that the

" Neii Cuddy, "Dy-nasty and Display: Politics and Painting in England, 1530- 1630," fiom the Hïstorical Introduction to the E'diiïition Catalogue of the Tate Wery's major winter exhi'bition, London UK, Oct- Jan 1995-1996, 8. " Cuddy, "Anglo-ScOaish Union and the Court of James 1, 1603-1625," 120. "~bid*,111. "~bid., 113-15. Ibid., 1 1 1; Cuddy, and Display," 8. King constantly worked to achieve a power baiance between his Scottish and English subjects.

It has been suggested by Cuddy and Wormald that in his efforts to produce imperial unity among his aristocracies, James strove constantiy to achieve a balance at court between Scots and Englishrnen. Zn his discussions of the political cofict in the first decade of James' reign, Cuddy has argued that the King tned to balance the number of

Scots and Englishmen equally in his councils and bedchamber. 52 When a stalemate arose between the King and the Cornrnons over the issue of the bedchamber, with the King refushg to disperse his Scomsh entourage and parliament refising to accept its presence any longer, James tried to end the impasse by elevating Robert Cam, who had a nibstantial

English backing. The King had hoped to b~gboth parties together behind a figure who would be rnutudy acceptable. James misjudged Cm's popularity, however, and when his new favourite alienated both the Scots and Engiish at court, he elevated an Engliçhrnan,

George Viers to be his new conciliator.53 According to Cuddy, James Wyreached a balance between English and Scottish favourites only when he elevated the Marquis of

Hdtonto be a Scottish rival for ~uckingharn.~~

Wormald has similarly pointed to James's desire to reach an ethnic balance in her discussions of the officers of state. With Scots taking over such offices as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Master of the Rous, "the English court did take on a genuinely

Anglo-Scottish flav~ur."~'James' maintenance of the Scottish bedchamber as the

"poïiticd heartbeat of the English establishment" indicated that he wanted to achieve a

" Cuddy, "'Angle-Scottish Union and the Court of James 5" 109- 10. " ibid., 118-19. ïbid., 120. balance; he tried to make his court and govenunent Anglo-Scottish by incorporating elements from both kingdoms.56 Despite James7 most cherished goal of union and unity between his kingdoms and their respective elites, however, politics tended to be doniinated by Scottish courtiers in the first half of his reign and by an Enghsh favourite in the second half As Cuddy has pohted out, James fàiled to reach a proper balance when he made his bedchamber the exclusive preserve of his more trusted Scottish foll~wers.~'

The subject of James' generosity to his Sconish followers, especially those within his bedchamber, has dso received considerable scmtiny &om historians. Revisionist historians have suggested several possible motives for the King's patronage of bis Scottish followers and have rejected traditional ideas about James as a weak king who engaged in extravagant expenditures because of some "alleged character defect."" Linda Levy Peck has argued that in dispensing patronage and awards to his foilowers, he was merefy trymg to epitomise the Renaissance ideal of virtuous generosity.5g Some have also recognised that James made a calculated decision to bring severai of his Scottish administrators south with him in 1603. Galloway challengecl the notion of James as an insensitive Scot who came to England with an entourage of countrymen whom he expected the English to embrace. Instead, he stressed that James had good reasons to keep Scots around and that they were not merely a host of spendthriff sycophants. They had been part of his Scottish administration in the decade prior to union and it was natural for him to retain his trusted and able councillors. It wodd have been a temble insult to Scotiand to have had these

------" Wodd, '-James VI, James 1 and the Identity of Britain," 157. 56 Ibid., 16445. " Cuddy, YAngl~-ScottishUniOn and the Couri of James 1," 108-10, 124. Ibid., 123. coundors summanly di~missed.~~Womald agreed th& James brought his Scottish entourage because its members had helped hlln successfully to govern Scotiand in the

1590s and he believed that they had something positive to oEer ~n~land.~'Histonans have now recognised that when James moved to London, a portion ofhis Scottish followen had necessarily to accompany hùn; the relocation of the Scottish king meant a relocation of the Sconish court. Noblemen Whially deserted Edinburgh &er 1603 : patronage could not be had if they did not follow the King to his new coud2

Anglocentric historians seem sometimes to forget that despite James' accession to the

English throne in 1603, he remained king of ScotIand. Wormald has remuided us that

Scots continued to have a claim to their king and a nght to share in his presence; James recognised that he had to avoid the appearance of neglecting bis Scoaish subjecd3

In receat discussions of James' patronage of his Scottish subjects the issue of balance has started to Se redressed. Stone wrote that James ofien made generous monetary gants to his Scottish supporters, but we are not infomed for what reason these oflen large sums were di~~ensed.~It was not un13later historians began to re-appraise the conspinious expenditure of the Scottish nobles at court, that we leamed that James was aying to achieve a type of status balance between his Sconish and English foiiowers.

Cuddy has suggested that while the English nobility had a systern of precedence based on the rank and seniority of a title, the award of offices codd elevate an outsider to a higher

59 Linda Levy Peck Court Paironage and Corruption in Eady Stuart England (Boston: Unwin Hyma~~, 1990), 15. 60 Galloway, The Union of England and Scothd, 15- 18. 61 Wormald, "Ja- es VI, James 1 and the Identity of Bris" 164. 62 Keith M. Brown, The Nobility of Jawbean Scotland, 1567-1625," 16; TheScotîish Ansîocracy," 553; Cuddy, "Dynasty and Display," 6; Jenny Wormald, Court, Kirk, and Community (London: Edward Aniold, 1981), 194. " Wormal4 "The union of 1603," 3 940. status than peers of older lineage and greater rd. The King's gaat of onices to many members of his Scottish entourage can therefore be viewed as a means of addressing a status imbalan~e.~~Brown has noted that the Scots at court also needed extra hdsto help to dehy the cost of living away fiom home for protracted periods. The generous gants allowed Scottish members of the royal entourage to achieve a standard of lMng comparable to the English nobles at court? In his study of material culture at court,

Smuts confirmed that the cost of Msual display and consumption was great, but it was an essential part of maintaining statu^.^' Brown admitted that James had to gant pensions of some sort to keep his less affluent Scottish followers at court, but these eventually became very substantial as "the proximity of the richer English aristocracy encouraged the Scots to live beyond their rnean~."~~He argued, however, that Scottish courtiers "were no different fiom English courtiers who were almost as needy and every bit as avaricious in seeking out patronage in order to sustain life at court."69

The past decade has witnessed a shift away from the Anglocentric histoq which paid iittle attention to the political role of Scots at the Jacobean court. In the past decade histonans have abandoned stereotypes of 'beggarly ' Scottish courtiers and have attempted to produce more comprehensive studies of the court. An emphasis on the fact that James

VI and I was stiil the king of Scotland after 1603 and that the Scots had a claim to their sovereign's favours has led to more sympathetic depictions of their place in London.

Many historians have recognised that politics in the early Stuart period cannot be

-- M Stone, The Crisis of the A ristocracy, 4 16- 17. 65 Cuddy, "Dynasty and Display," 3. Brown, "The Nobility of Jambean Scotland," 17; 'The Scottish Anstocracy," 559-60. 67 Smuts, "Art and the material culture of majesty in early Stuart England," 9 1-93. " Brown, The Scottish Atistocracy," 55940. appropriately viewed as merely English or Scottish, but that a "British" political culture was beginning to develop based on elements fiom both kingdoms. A central role has been

@en to James VI and I in new studies ofthe court and his attempts to create political and imperial unity through the integration of national elites has been emphasised. Much of the political codict in James' reign cm be viewed in the context of his desire for both union and a status balance between his English and Scottish followers. Studies of British integration aod the foundations of the Bntish state have allowed for new interpretations of

James and his court. Building upon these, a study of the King's specinc efforts to forge a

British aristocracy is particularly timely. Recent historians have gone a long way in rehabilitating the image of the Scots at court, but more importantly they have recognised that the English aristocracy was not the only infiuential group of elites in England. This thesis will endeavour to show how James VI and 1 worked to merge both elite groups into a single Anglo-Scottish, or rat her, British arist ocracy.

69 Brown, "Courtiers and Cavaliers," 180. Precedence, Precedents and Propaganda: The Name of Britain and the Search for Status Neutrality, 1603-1604

Shortiy after his ascension to the English throne in 1603, James VI of Scotland and

1 of England and Ireland began to discuss the possibility of uniting his two British kingdams into one. James believed that ifhe was to dehis new empire effectively, he would have to create not only a political union, but a national merger of some sort between his old and new subjects. He recognised that feelings of hostility and national chauvinism continued to exkt between the two nations, despite the halfcentury of peace that preceded his acquisition of the southem kingdom, and believed that by encouraging mutual love and ûiendship between his English and Scottish subjects, a laçting peace and enduring union could be secured. He hoped that as his old and new subjects began to interact with each other on a regdar bis, sentiments of animosity would turn to ones of fiatemity and national divisions would begin to blur and fade. One of the surest and fastest ways of removing the national distinctions was to remove the name of stranger from each of the nations. By uniting his peoples under a common name, issues of national precedence and status imbalances wouid be made irrelevant; al1 the inhabitants of the

British Isles wouid immediately become Britons and parochial identifications and jealousies would graduaily become a thing of history.

This chapter will examine the name of Britain and the ways in which James and his supporters, who viewed the distinct narnes as "the very seed of division"' between

England and Scotland, advanced the name alteration in efforts to bridge the gulf. First and foremost, the adoption of Britain was designed to elhinate status Mbalances and questions of precedence between England and ~cotland.~Scots tended to believe that their kingdom deserved the pnde of place due to the facts that their realm was more ancient and had provided England with its king. The English, however, who pointed to their nation's size, international prestige and traditional military dominance over Scotland, had a proclivity to assert that England was the more glonous and powerful nation and therefore deserving of precedency over its northern counterpart. In reality, Englishmen had to ded with the additional fact that with a scion of the hated Scottish nation now governing their kingdom, their traditional supremacy over Scotland was challenged. With their nation's status as the hegemon of the British Isles threatened, Englishmen began to assert their distinctive identity with increased vigour. James' repeated cds for muhial love and emotional identification with a single British nation demonstrated that he recognised the problem and clearly understood the need to do away with traditional notions of precedence by eroding the divisions inherent in a multi-national monarchy.

Ji the debates over the name change, both in the English and Scuttish Pariiaments and in propaganda tracts, national chauvinism exacerbated the status issues which the

King sought to ameliorate. Since the anticipated union was not one of conquest, the assimilation by one kingdom of another was not possible. While many contemporary dtersrecognised that the union had to be an equal partnership founded on peace and

1 John Gordon, Ennikon or a Sermon of the Union of Great Brittannie, in mtiquitie of longpage, nme, religion, and Kingdome (London: Georgü Bishop, 1604), 30. 2 Bnan P. Laack offers a Merent view in The Formation offhe British Sfa&: England. Scotland and the Union, 160% 1 707 (Mord: Chrendon Press, l987), 189. He asserts that James' pr- motive for altering the name was to "celebrate his dynastic achievement." He concedes, however, that the nanie's contn'bution 30the growth of a new national ickntity" was another aibeit less simiif'icant side &ect of the alteration. mutual benefits, many English anti-unionists proved unwilling to make any substantial

concessions to the Scots. Traditional notions of Scotland's inferiority and lack of

civilisation remained popular and proved difticult for the King and his propagandists to

dispel.

Historical arguments figured prominently in the assertions of the legally-minded

English opponents of the union, who recalled real and imagined historical precedents to

assert England's superiority over Scotland. The debate over the creation of Britain also

provided rich exarnples of the political use of history. Both opponents and supporters of

the union employed historical arguments to legitimise theû particular agendas. The ancient

Bntons were viewed alternatively as either a barbarous and conquered tribe or a strong

and proud nation, depending on who offered the interpretation. Those in favour of the

change in name usually asserted that the creation of Britain was not an innovation, but a

reformation of an older nation and kingdom which had been lost. By appealing to a

sentimental ideal of a classical Britain, a mode1 was found in aotiquity of an island peopled

by a single nation, fiee f?om ethnic strife and United against the rest ofthe world.

The establishment of an island composed of a single people lMng in hamiony

berne a project to which the f3st Stuart king of England devoted much of his life.

Anglo-Scottish union, both political and national, was an aspiration of James Stuart Eorn

the time he realised he would succeed EWeth in England to the tirne of his death in

1625. James had publicly hinted at lns desire to see the two nations evenhiaily unite as

early as 1599 in his BasiZzcon Doron. The Scomsh king wisely recognised that integration

would take the, advising his son Henry against forcing it on his subjects. He suggested that his son should allow union to: be brought on with time and at leisure; specially by so mixhg through alliance and daily conversation, the inhabitants of every kingdom with other, as may with time make them grow and meld al1 in one: which may easily be done betwVa these two nations, being both but one ne of Bntaine, and aireadie joined in unitie of Religion and language. So that even as in the times of our ancestours, the long warres, and many btoodie battels betwixt these two countries, bred a naturd and herediterie hatred in every of them, against the other: the uniting and welding of them hereafler in one, by all sort of niendship, commerce and alliance, will by the contrary produce and maintaine a naturd and inseparable unitie of love amongst therna3

This desire to witness the acation of England and Scotiand into one realrn gained

further impetus when James became the king of England. During his slow southerly

progress in the sp~gof 1603, the new king's nation-building ambitions becarne readily

apparent to Sir Francis Bacon. Mer one of his first meetings with James VI and I, Bacon

sent a letter to the Earl of Northumberland describiag his generd impressions of their new

sovereign. The King's seerningly overeager unionist inclinations worried Bacon who noted that : "He hasteneth to a mixture of both kingdoms and nations, faster perhaps than policy will conveniently bexm4Bacon's reservations proved well-founded in the months that followed.

In the surnmer of 1603, James began to redise that the union of love he had envisaged would not be as easy to effect as he had anticipated. England and Scotland had been national enernies for over three centuries and the half-centq of peace which had preceded Eiizabeth's death had done little to abate traditional feelings of hostility. Only a few months after James had entered England, circumstances obliged hùn to deal with the issue of conrinuhg AngIo-Scomsh confli~ts~particularly in the Border region. Not

3 James VI, King of Scoîiand, Basilicon Doron in Johsnn Sommemille, ed., King James VI and 1: Political W~tings(Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1994), 59. 4 James Spedding, ed., The Works of Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam, Viscount SZ.Alban. and Lord Chancellor ofEngland, X (New York: Garrett, 1968), 77. wishing to alienate the affections of either nation, he tried to steer a neutral course, refusing to give one nation an advantage over the other in judicial proceedings. In the eyes of the King some of his English magistrates proved reluctant to treat Scottish appeiiants with reasoned impartiality, however, and he had to intercede on their behalf

On 8 July 1603, a royal proclamation was issued "respecting the Concord of English and

Scotch, eamestiy stating the King's resolution to proceed with equal affection and impartiaiity to both Nations, and desiring all Oficers and Magistrates to do the sarne."

The reason was that "insolencesyyreportedly committed by the Scots who had come south with James had led justices to be "remise" agaïnst members of that nation in c0u1-t.~It was one thing for the King to demand that Scots receive fair trials in England, but entirely another for him to quel1 the violent border clashes which had endangered Anglo-Swttish relations for centuries. On 30 Iuly 1603, the Venetian ambassador wrote ominously that there had been many reports "of collisions between Scottish and English on the border, for it seems that these two nations will never be able to pull together." James did not appreciate the ambassador's pessimism, which turned out to be prophetic, but rather believed that the two nations would indeed come together in a union of peace and love: they just needed more tirne.

In his Bm-iconDororz, James revealed tfiat he believed national accommodation to be a long-term process. A "quenching of the olde hate in the hearts of both peopleyy had begun during the reign of Elizabeth with the amity between the English and Scottish

John Nichols, ed., Progresses, Processions, and ltfugnificent Festivities ofKing James the First, His Royal Consort Famiiy and Court, 1 (New York: But Franklin, 2828), 199. Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, Relating to English mirs, Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice and in Other Libraries of Northern Ifaly, I6O3-Z607,X, Horatio F. B~OWTI.,ed. (London: His Majesty 's Stationery Office, 19M), 70-71. monarchs, but needed to continue into his reign as king of ~n~land.'Suggesting that the

Pace with which fiatemal feelings were developing ought to quicken, James wrote fkom

Hampton Court to his Privy Council in Scotland on 12 January 1604 commanding it to cal1 a Parliament to discuss the issue of Anglo-Scottish union. He declared that since

Scotland and England were:

being now joyned togidder under ane head.. . in ane commoun habitatioun in ane Ile disjonit Ea the great Continent of the world, oure princelie caïr mon be extendit to sie thame joyne and coalesce togidder in a sinceir and peme union, and, as two twins bred in me beliïe, love ane another as no moir twa bot ane estate.'

Ernphasising the similarities between the two nations, he asserted that a cornmon possession of the island of Britain made union a rational proposition. He called upon them not only to CO-habitatepeacefulIy on the same island, but to abandon their ideas of national distinctness.

In spite of his ardent desire to merge his two peoples into a single nation, the King recognised that he could not be seen as an innovator and that the maintenance of a perception of historical continuity was necessary. In his initial speech to the English

Parliament on 19 March 1604, therefore, historicd precedents played a prominent part in his discourse on the need for an equal union. Referring to Kuig Henry W as "the first

Uniter" and "ground-laye?' of peace, James reminded bis listeners of the dynastic union which his great-great-grandfather had embodied. While he praised this accomplishment,

James was quick to point out that "the Union of these two princely houses [York and

Lancaster], is nothing comparable to the Union of two ancient and famous Kingdoms,

-- -- 7 lames VI, Basilicon Doron in Sommerville, d,Political Writings, 59. 13 David ass son, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, VI (Edinburgh: H M. General Register House, l884), 596. which is the other inward Peace annexed to ny p ers on"^ James' conscious association with Henry W and the Tudor dynas~rserved a dual purpose: it reminded Parliament both of the continuity between the Tudor and Stuart dynasties and of the importance of unity in the preservation of peace and stability. The union was not entireiy the work of mere rnortals, however, and the King niggested that God had already effected a union of sorts between the two nations. He rhetoncally asked whether: "God by his Almightie providence hath preordained it so to be? Hath not God kst united these two Kingdomes both in Language, Religion, and sùnilitude of maners?"1° With God' s will clearly enunciated by his lieutenant on earth, members of parliament would have to be doubly circurnspect in any objections they might raise.

James believed that an Anglo-Scottish political union was in some ways a fait accompli, at least in terms of the political executive, but he recognised that his northern and southem subjects had to be persuaded to accept each other as equals if'a more substantive national union was to be reaiised. He did not have to look far to find historical precedents for an equitabie union, pointing to the strengthening of England which resulted from the uniting of the heptarchy in the early middle ages and to the eventual incorporation of Wdes as examples. He noted that Wessex, which had been the seat of

Saxon us,did not retain any claim to precedence over other regions in England after the formation of the kingdom of England. He hoped that England and Scotland could mmge together to fom a single kingdom just as the various kingdoms had done at the end ofthe heptarchic period." He sou& a permanent union founded on mutual assimilation

9 James 1, King of England, "Speech 19 March f604," in Sommemille, ed., Political Writings, 134-35. 'O Ibid., 135. " Ibid., 135-36. assimilation such "as was of the Scots and the Picts in Scotland, and of the Heptarchie here in ~ngiand."l2 The union would be one of arnalgamation and not of annexation; a new name was therefore logicdy required.

Perhaps surprisingly, the initial proposal for an alteration in name came not fiom the King, but fkom his new pro-union strategist Sir Francis Bacon. Shortly afker James' inaugural speech, Bacon asserted that a cornmon name would have to be an essential feature of any prospective union. He wrote that "though it seem but a superficiai and outward matter, yet it carry much impression and enchantment."13 ~heevocative power of the narne would help to create a sense of cohesiveness in the rninds of those who would use it. Many agreed that a cornmon name was needed, but support for the specific names of Britain, Scotland or England largely hinged on how individuais perceived the union and the relationship between the two kingdoms.

Less than two weeks after James had opened his first English Parliament, a iittle known member 60m Wales officialiy raised the question of the name in the Commons.

On 3 1 March 1604, Su Wiiam Momce presented a motion for the union of England and

Scutland and the adoption of the name Great Britain for this new kingdom l4 According to one observer, "Sir William Morrice made a long speech about the Union, delivering the

King's pedigree, and to have him calIed Emperor: this was advised on, or rather put 0~"'~

The issue of an alteration in name did not receive a very enthusiastic reception in the

'' ~bid-,161. " Sir Francis Bacon, "A Brief Dixourse Touching the Happy Union of the Kingdoms of England and Scotian&" in Spedding, A. The Worhof Francis Bacon, X ,97. I4 Joumuf of the &use of Commons, 1 ondon: House of Cornmons, 1803), 160. He was later acknowledged in the Commons, on 20 April, to have staried the debate. See Journal of the House of Commons, 1, 179. Commons and the veqr fact that it was 'put off indicates that most members were not willing to discuss the prospect at that time. The name issue was not raised again until two weeks later when Dudley Carleton recorded a speech delivered by Bacon before the

Commons. With reference to reasons ofjustice, honour, and policy, Bacon asserted that the new realm ought to be called the Kingdom of Great Britain. In terms of justice, Bacon argued that the new polity should remain a kingdom, reassuring the Commons that Iarnes wouid not assume the title of emperor out of respect for "foreign Princes, upon whom he wouid not usurp an-unproper style of greatness." Wïth respect to honour, a new name was beneficial for "honour contracted was better than honour divided" and that one great jewel was better than a cluster of srnalier less precious ones. Furthemore, Bacon asserted that "Britain" or "Brittany," a "tme and historïcal" name, 'kas honourable for [its] antiquity." Finally, the positive effects on policy and governance seemed readily apparent to Bacon who announced that: "a Union in name d draw on a unity of affections betwurt the two king dom^."'^ FoUowing Bacon's speech, other servants of the crown quickly advanced similar arguments in favour of union.

On the same day, Lord Chancellor Ellesmere delivered a pro-union speech in the

Commons on behalf of the King. James wanted the Commons to agree to a change in

l5 "Journal by Sir Edward Montagu of Proceedings in the House of Gommons," in His?orical Mmuscripts Commission, Buccleuch, III (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1926)' 83-84. '' Spedding, ed., The Works of Francis Bacon, X , 19 1. This speech dispiayed a reversal of Bacon's earlier position. Zn his 1603 "A Bnef Discourse touching the Happy Union of the Kingdoms of England and Scatland," Bacon had actually chedthat Britain had never before been united, but that James' achievernents were therefore al1 the greater. He wrote that it "doth not appear by the reçords and monuments of any tnie histoq, nor scarceIy by the fiction and pleasure of aqfàbulous narration or tradition of any antiquity, that ever this island of Great Britain was united under one king before this &y." He may have ben playkg-up the lack of historical narratives to debis own prospectFve hkiory of Great Britain more attractive and important. Mer the King's wishes in fàvour of the aame alteration became clear, hower, the pragmatic Bacon quickly changed his tack and fell into line with those who name as a necessary step towards greater union and Eilesmere remindeci the Lower House that a precedent for nich an action could be found in the reign of Henry Vm. Ellesmere asserted t hat :

the diversity of the names of this our Island, England and Scotland, which very division of name hath been the cause of spending much blood.. . was shewed that in Henry Vm.'s the, when a match was talked of between Edward VI. and this King's mother, that was in proposition to bring him to one name, to wit, Brittayne, and therefore now to be propounded for the uniting of the u ni on."

James and Eliesmere argued that if the narne of Britaïn was good enough for Henry Vm to consider adopting, it would serve equally well at the beginning of a new century.

The citing of precedents similariy cornprised an important element of the case in

Parliament in favour of altering the name of the two kingdoms to Britaùi. On 18 April

1604, members of the Cornrnow debated the adoption of the name Britain. Those in favour of the change claimed that "by the Name ofBritain we retum adprisfinam dignitatem, to Antiquity, which is most honomable." The following day, several members made reference to Britain's glorious past claiming that the island's ancient inhabitants had

"held back the Romans in their ~reatness."'~Perceptions of British history varied at the time, however, and romanticised depictions of the ancient Britons were Eequently viewed with scepticism by those who preferred to extol the virtues of England's Germanic founderdg A more contemporaneous and histoncally incontestable precedent for the

argued that Briîain had a valid historical bais. !3ee Bacon, "A Brief Discourse Touching the Happy Union" in Spedding, ed,The Works of Francis Bacon, X ,92. '' "Jou.by Sir Edward Montagu of Proceediags in the House of Gommons," in HMC, Buccleuch, ïIï, 86. l8 Journal of the House of Comrnons, 1, 176-177. I9 See T. D. Kendrick, Bntish Anfipity (London: Methuen & Co., 1950). Kendrick argwd that many Tudor antiquarianç, such as John Bale and John Leland, focused on the British origin of England, insisting that the Kings of England were successors of a Iegitimately historicai King Arthur. In Kendrick's view, "the supreme task of exalting the British dominated every aspect of Leland's Me as an antiquary". (page 5 1) By the first decade of the seventeenth century, however, the chdlenges of severai name of Bntain was mentioned in the Commons debates, when a member cited the Bishop of Ross, a SCO~S~contemporary of Mary, Queen of Scots, as an ea* advocate of the tem "Britain." According to this member, the bishop had argued that the problems of precedency between the two kingdoms could be avoided by the adoption by Mary of the style "Queen of Great ~rittaine."~'Mary never actually adopted this title, however, so this precedent bore little weight.

During the debates over the alteration in name, the Commons recognised the significance of the change to Great Britain in foaering fratemal feelings between the

English and Scots. On 18 Apd 1604, an unnamed member in the Commons announced that there would be "Less Union in Hearts if it be not effected.. . Let there be no Cause of

Strife, for we are ~rethren."~'The following day the Commons acknowledged that James wanted to join the hearts of his peoples.n With the King's nation-building wishes known, the Lower House at least had to make an attempt to address the issue. On 23 April, an unidentified member spoke in favour of the name change claiming that "the Name will beget love," thereby satis-g the King's desire? Despite these few instances of support for both a change in name and a national rapprochement, the voices raised in the

Commons in favour of a union of any type remained rare during James' fïrst parliarnentary session. The name issue had not been favourably received and the lack of enthusiasm with

historians to notions of an Arthurian Wod and British golden age had gained acceptance by a Iarge portion of the Engiish intelligentsia. WiI1ia.m Camden's Briiîmia, which detaiIed the significance of the AngIo-Saxons as the dominant cuituraI goup in England's history, had reached its fifth edition by 1600. Graham Parry has claimed that by the time that the union discussion had begun, most gentlemen of Iearning considered Camden's work an essential part of their library. See Graham Pany, The Trophies of Tirne: English Antiquarians of the Seventeenth Cenîury (Mord: University Press, 1995)' 22'48. "Journal of the House of Commons, 1, 177. " 'id., 176. "Ibid., 178. Ibid., 182. which the Commons approached any issue touching union did not bode weli for the

success of such propositions in the next session.

The suggestion that the name of Bntain be adopted initially received a wnsiderably

more favourable response in the House of Lords. On 14 April 1604, rnembers of both

Houses, in a conference of the Lords and Cornons, began to discuss the issues of union

and the proposed name change. On 16 April the Common7sJournal indicated that the

Lords had resolved that the Union was already in effect and that "there was great Offence

by the distinct Names: - niat being here to fore Two in Name, they might both now be

stiled by the Name of Great n ri tain."*^ With the seemingly positive attitude of the Lords

towards both the name of Britain and the union project, Ellesmere quickly presented the

Upper House with a "draught" or "memonal" composed by the King outlining how a

Union biil rnight be fiamed? On 28 April 1604, a conference of the Lords and Cornons

met again to discuss the issues raised by the mg's missive and the Lords declared that they would first consult with judges over the issue of the name change and then report

their deliberations to the ~ommons.~~The judges wmed the Lords that altering

England's name could prove very dangerous as it would necessarily invalidate wrîts, court

verdicts and the very basis of the English constitution.27 Once the ju&s had delivered their opinions, the Lords promptly informeci the Commons that "the Name cannot be

altered now without Prejudice to the State (rebtrs sic siantibus) therefore that point was at

24 Ibid., 173;Journal of the fiouse of Lm&, II, 277. 25 It was presented on 21 Aprii 1604. See Journal ofthe House of Lords, Il, 284. 26 ~ournalof the House oflordr, II, 287. 27 Spedding, ed., The Works of Francis Bacon, X ,200. an end."2g The issue of the name alteration was not directly raised again for debate in the

Lords before the prorogation of parliament in July of that year.

Discussion of the name change in the English Parliament reappeared briefly in May when a controversy arose over a propaganda tract written by a mernber of the peerage. In the middie of that month, John Thornborough, Bishop of Bristol, published a book which supported the narne of Great Britain, but at the same time appeared to criticise ParLament for its foot-dragging in addresçing both the union and the name's adoptionm On 26 May the Lords read a cornplaint fiom the Lower House conceniing the book which, "tending to make division and strife," ailegedly revealed some of the Commons' proceedings. On hearing the grievance, the Lords replied that it would examine the book and then decide what action to take.jO On 30 May 1604, the Lords appointed a cornmittee to meet with the Commons to discuss the dficulties raised by the book's publication.31 At the conference, the Commons asserted that the Bishop, as a lord spintual, had no right to interfere in or criticise the proceedings of the Lower House. The Lords agreed that the book cuntained inappropnate remarks and decided to rebuke the Bishop and oblige him to issue a formal ap~logy.~~On 5 June 1604, Thornborough formally repented writing the book before the Lords and admitted his nistake, stating that:

I confess that I have erred, in presuming to deliver a private Sentence in a Matter so dealt in by the High Court of Parliament. .. But 1 protest it was done of Ignorance, and not a malice towards either of the Houses of Parfiament, or any

78 Journal of the House of Lords, U, 287-8. " John Thomborough, A Discourse Plainely Proving the evident utilitie and urgent necepirie of the desired happie Union of the two famous Kingdomes of England and Scotland: by way of answer ta certaine objections against the same (London: Richard Field for Thomas Char4 1604). 30 Journal of the ffouse of lortzk?II, 306. 3' Ibid., 309. "Ibid., 3 14; Spedding, ed, The Works of Francis Bacon, X ,20849. particuiar Member of the same; but only to declare my Affection to the intended Union, which I doubt but ail your Lordships do allow of "33

The Bishop's declaration of contrition fded to satise the Gommons, however, which requested on 21 June that his apology aiso be officially entered into the Comrnons' records. The Lords promised to consider the matter and on 28 June announced that a meeting should take place between mernbers of the two Houses to discuss it. This anticipated conference never took place.34 Jeformal recantation had satisfied the Lords who may have viewed another apology to the Commons as an encroachment on the

Bishop's privileges. As a lord spiritual and rnember of the Upper House, he would have been immune to any injunction fiom the Lower House; a gendection of any sort before the Commons could possibly be viewed as a breach of the Lords' precedence.

Thornborough's book had accurately detailed many of the Commons' objections to the name alteration and the Lower House's primary cornplaint was that the Bishop had inappropriately made public the content of Parliarnentary debates, not that his assertions were fdacious. Key to Thornborough's discourse was a wholesale rejection of the national chauvinisrn which had pre-occupied many of the eariy debates about the name, particularly the suggestion of English precedence within the Union. On 18 April 1604, members of the Comrnons had expressed reluctance to take the name Britain with Sir

Maurice Berkeley voicùig the opinions of many of his CO-Parliamentarianswhen he argued that England was a glorious and honourable nation whose prestige would be compromised in a union of names. He was particularly adamant about not approaching Scotland first with a suggestion of a change; ifEngland was seen to initiate the alteration by

33 Journal of the House of Lordr, II., 3 14. 3" Ibid., 325-344. surrendering its name first, he believed, it could be construed as a sign ~fweakness.~~The foilowing day, the Commons demanded that Scotland produce an act of fodsubmission to Engiand. The Commons feared that Eogland would lose its imagined historicai superiority over Scotland if the two nations met equaily in union.36 Many members believed that since the king of Scotland had done hornage to the king of England in the fourteenth century, Scotland still remained subordinate." Among the Scotophobic conditions for union made by the Commons was the requirement that: "none but of our own Nation may have Offices of the ~rown''.~~Fearing an anticipated deluge of Scots to

England who "being animated by this change in narne" would immigrate, the Commons apparently wanted to take prevent ative measures to protect the statu and privileges of native-born ~n~~shrnen.~~

The Lower House's chauvinistic demands may seem at fkst naïve or u~ealisticin a plan for long-term union, but it is possible that the Cornmons deliberately made exorbitant demands which the Scots could not meet, at least not without çuffering a degree of national humiliation, in order to prevent a substantiat union. Parliamentarians opposed to the alteration in name may have wanted to appear amenable to the King's wishes by suggesting a way to achieve the alteration, but in reality intentionally set the conditions higher than the Scots would be prepared to meet. The Scots would therefore bear the brunt of the King's displeasure for having appeared reluctant to compromise.

Members in the English Commons would have been aware that the Scots had fittle

'' Journal of the House of Commons, I, 177. '' Ibid., 177. 37 Ibid., 179. 38 Ibid., 183. 39 Ibid., 184. enthusiasm for the change in narne. As early as 18 September 1603, the Venetian

Ambassador had reported that: "The Scomsh have already let it be known that they WU

never consent to abandon their name."" Witti the Scots uneager to adopt the name of

Britain, English insistence that they do so on unfavourable terms was more apt to

strengthen Scottish opposition.

If the members of the English Commons had indeed hoped to discredit the Scots and elevate themselves in the eyes of the King, they did not dowtheir plan to corne to hition. Before the Scottish Pariiament had even heard England's dernands for concessions, the English Commons decided that a name change could not occur before a political union. On 20 April, they declared that the Kingdom of Great Bntain codd not be created in name until after a govemmental union had been effected? One MP,

Nicholas Fuller, used the incorporation of Wales as a precedent for an examination of legal systems before union." This reticence was not lost on the King who sent his missive about a possible union biil to the Lords the following day. The Lower House had not endeared itselfto James when it intimatecl that even after a political union had occurred it might continue to resist efforts to effect a change in name. Using a Scomsh analogy that the King was sure to appreciate, the Commons claimed that just as husbands and wives niaomady kept their own names &er marriage in Scotland, so too should the nations.

Members of the Lower House defended England as a proud name which had withstood change even after the Norman conquest and remauied steadfast in their insistence that no

CSPV,X, 94. 41 Journal of the House of Commons, 1, 179;Spedding, ed,The Works of Francis Bacon, X , 19 1-93. "Journal of the House of Cornons,1, 177. precedent existed for the alterati~n.'~With the Cornons' pronouncement and the news fiom the Lords conceming the judges opinions, parliamentary debate over the change in name was effectiveiy at an end."

By the beginning of May, the matter of the narne was a dead issue in Parliament.

On 1 May 1604, Bacon reported in his journal that, as far as the Commons were concemeci, the name change was "a thing left, and no more to be spoken on."" Both the

Lords and Commons had ~ejectedthe proposed name change, but the two Houses recognised that some gesture had to be made to reassure their new King of their continuhg fidelity and utility. Accordingly, on 12 May 1604, a representative of both

Houses presented a letter to James praising his handling of the union issue and thanking him for forbearing their reluctance to enact a law changuig the narne of the kingdom:

And your Majesty having dso given unto us a pledge of this your most gracious intention by your princely suspension and forbearance to require of us any present act for alteration of your Majesty' s royal style and name, upon the discovery of the perils that might ensue thereupon unto the state of this kingdom, for the which your Majesty's most gracious benignity we do yield unto you our most humble and affectionate thanks?

They then expressed a hope that they would be able to enact the alteration before the end of the present parliament. "It is therefore (most gracious Sovereign) al! Our hearts' desire,... that it may be enacted by the authority of this present parliament .'"' The letter was a plea for James to refrain nom dissolving parliament. They wanted to give James the impression that if he only prorogued parliament, they would attempt to enact the changes he desired in the next session. The ploy worked for James did merely prorogue

43 Ibid., 177. 44 Ibid., 179. 45 Spedding, ed., The JVurks of Francis Bacon, X ,203. 46 Ibid., 206. parliament; however, the debate over the name soon moved out into the arena of public

opinion.

In the months that followed the end of official debate over the name of Bntain in

the English Parliament, Thornborough's Discourse proved to be but the opening salvo in a

propagmda war which attempted to persuade both mernbers of Parliament and the general

public either for or against the union project and the alteration in England's name. Of the

many practical objections against the name that Thomborough attempted to refute, one

concerned immediately pressing dynastic issues. Members of the Commons worried that if

the crowns of England and Scotland were melded into one, then the Enghsh royal

succession might be made subordhate to Scotland's, with the crown passing to another

Scottish scion shouid the present King's line fail. Thomborough argued that, in the short

term, English subjects had little to worry about since God had already blessed the King

with a tiumvirate of healthy children. Recognising that a calamity rnight befd the royal

family in the longer te- however, the Bishop asserted that both crowns would then pass

to the relative closest in blood to the King, be that individual English or ~cottish.'"

Another tract, A heatise about the Uizion of EngZmd and Scotkmd, penned anonymously

by a Scot shortly afterwards, not only accepted the Commons' claims that the creation of

a British kingdom would make the Stuarts the dynastic family of England, but asserted

that the Scottish succession wodd thereafter dominate in the whole island. The author

" 7bid. 48 Thomborough, A Discourse Plainely Proving the evident utilitie and urgent necepilie of the desired happie Union of the îwo famous Kingdomes of England and Scotland, 2 1-23. did not see a problem in this situation, however, as England's Line already had descended lawfiilly to the Stuarts of ~cotland.~~

Sir Henry Spelmq the English jurist, scholu and antiquarian, argued in Of the

Union that any alteration in the rnonarchy's style would cause additional practicai difnculties if the two crowns ever suffered division for any reason. Agreeing with the

Commons' dynastic objections, he wrote that should the dual-monarchy be separated in the future, the Line of succession in both kingdoms would be questioned and disputed. He also drew attention to the practicai, non-dynastie, difficulties which would complicate a split should one ever occur. The English lawyer foresaw potential problems with the division of nich items as the crown jewels and plate as weli as other "treasure, plate, juells, munitions, shipping, omaments and utensils" in the possession of the royal family.50 This put a negative spin on what the King had seen as a positive benefit of union, a hope that the joining of the crowns would tie the kingdoms closer together and make division harder to effect.

Propagandists noted that the rnerger of English and Scottish foreign policy was another practical benefit which would accrue fiom the name alteration and eventual national union. The author of A tredse about the Union of Enghzd d ScofImd recognised that once they were united by the name of Great Britain, both kingdoms wouki have to share policy and privileges with respect to foreign affairs. In effect this would mean an end to the age-old Scottish alliance with France and the privileged status enjoyed

49 A treatise about the Union of England and Scotfand, in Bruce R GaUoway and Bnan P. Levack, eds., The Jacobean Union: Six Tracts of 1604 (Edinburgh: Scottish History Society, 1985), 69-71. 50 Sir Hemy Spelman, Ofthe Union in Gaiioway and Levack, eûs., The Jacobean Union, 170. by French subjects in ~cotland.~~Such views on a cooling of Franco-Scottish relations were echoed by Sir Henry Savile, an Engiish historian and antiquarian, who suggested that the narne change for Scotland would mean that the Scots: "wiJ.l the more easily fdfiom the straight dependency which of long thethey have had and do yet hold with France.

And to say the txuth, the French themselves will be thereby the more cold to imbrace them." He then went on to rernind his English readers that it was irnperative that the Scots sever their connections with France for the greater security of both realrns. A fiiendly

France could assist subversive and rebellious elements in Scotland; England could therefore also be threatened by the activities of French agents operating unimpeded in the

In addition to the practical arguments raised in favour of Biitain, some commentators suggested that the name fiilfilled ancient prophecies. For example, during his initial speech on the topic of British unity in March 1604, Sir Wùliam Momce had alluded to a Wehh prophecy of uncertain origin in favour of such a move. Two par liment ary observers offered very difFerent translations of the ancient prophecy . The first, Sir John Farrington, traaslated it thusly :

A King of British blood in cradle crowne[d] With lion mark shdjoin all British ground, Restore the cross, and deIsle renowne[d].

The second, Mr. Francis Tate, wrote that:

The crowned child, Having the lion in his skin, And gained the cross, SMhave Brute's Island without division.

A treatise about the Union ojEnglm>d and Scotlmd in Galloway and Levack, eds., The Jacobean Union, 7 1. '' Sir Henry Savile, Historicall Collections in Galloway ami Levack, eds., The Jacobean Union, 206. And fkom thenceforth shall [sic] better and bette?3

While Tate's alrnost incoherent translation is probably the more literal of the two,

Fartington's looser one most certainly reflects better the spirit ofthe prophetic verse. The content of the prophecy may seem at fist to depict James' reign too accwately to be authentic, but Xit is read as an allusion to Arthurian legend then its validity becomes less improbable. While the coincidental similarities between the verse and James' life were strikïng and may have raised eyebrows, the issue of pro-British prophesies received little fiirtfier attention in Parliament.

Prophetic voices could be heard with much greater fkequency outside of

Parliament where numerous propagandists employed such myth-evoking arguments in favour of a "British? rather thm mereiy Anglo-Scottish union. Most of the pro-British prophecies had Celtic ongins, irrespective of who invoked them. In his Historicall

Collections, the Englishman Savile alludeci to a Welsh prophecy of uncertain on@ which stated that "Britons" would one day be the "Lords of London." He also made specific reference to a prophecy fht recorded by Henry of Huntington in the early thirteenth century which claimed that the English would be dedfist by Normans and then by the

~cots.~~Many more allusions to a united Britaùi, however, came Eom Scots.

A. H. Williamson has recendy exarnined the role played by Edinburgh rnathematicians in the introduction of prophetic discourse into the public debate over

53 "Journal by Sir Edward Montagu of Proceedings in the House of Commom," in HMC. Buccleuch, m, 84. 54 Savile, Hîstoricall Collections in Galloway and Lcvack, eds., The Jacobean Union, 209. He mistakenly attniuted the recording of the prophecy to the thirteenth century. Henry of Htmtington (6 c. 1 160) probably recorded the prupheq in the early twelflh œntury. See Juliet Gardiner and Neil Wenborn, eds., British nit^.'^ Williamson drew particukr attention to the efforts of James Maxwell, a

Scottish rnathematician Wit h prophetic interests. Mer following James to England,

MaxweU became an ardent British enthusiast who frequently spoke of the cornhg of a

"new British age." According to Williamson, Maxwell was fond of reminding his contemporaries that: "A 'leaf out of Robert Bruce's lefi side to the ninth degree had long been prophesied one day to reconstitute annent Bntain" and that %ese expectations now appeared to be in the process ~ffulfilment."~~Queen Mary had been the ninth Scottish monarch to succeed Robert Bruce, but her son hunes VI was the &th Stewart monarch and the ninth Scottish king. Robert Pont, a Lawyer and divine from Scotland who had been both a colleague of John Knox and a "founding father of the Scottish refomatioq" supplied some other prophecies of his own before James had even arrived in ~n~land."

Williamson has related how: "On the day of Elizabeth's death., Pont reporîedly managed to gain access to the king... and greeted him as 'King of Great Brïtain, France and Ireland. "'

The report did not mention whether his prophesy came fkom astrology or naturd insight, although Pont fiequently denied that he was a "~eer."~~Following James' actud recognition as King ofEngiand, Pont, iike Maxweil, became a herald of a new British age.

The influence of Pont's prognostications on Scottish popular opinion shodd not be dismissed iightly by modem historians for he "spoke with great ieaming, vast experience

"Henry of Huntingdon" in The Hisrory Today Cornpanion to British History (London: Collins & Brown, 1995), 380. 55 Arthur H. Williamson, "Number and national conscioumess: the Edinburgh mathematicians and Scottish political culture at the union of the crownsSIin Roger A Maçon, ed., Scots und B~tons:SCO~S~ Political Thought and the Union of 1603 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 187-2 12. He has arguai that: ferOcious inteUectuai reaction in whidr the king played a Ieading roIe, the mathematicians, both imperiai and anti-imperid, expaaded the realm of the inteUectually acceptable." Sec page 212. 56 rbid, 200-20 2. 57 Ibid., 193. and enormous authority, and when he did so, ail of Scotland ~istened."~~The effects of his words and w-ritings on the English popular irnagiuation are more difficult to assess.

The English, however, had a prophetic tradition of their own and a number of writers there also raised supernaturd arguments in Edvour of a united Britain. Sir John

Harington's Tract on the Sirccessiorz to the Crowri, written in 1602 but published later for fear of sedition, employed such arguments when it suggested that the name of 'Britaine' ought to be used when the prospective Anglo-Scottish union occurred. Harington recalled a " blynde prophesye" nom his childhood which stated that: "Mer Hempe is sowen and growen/'gsof England shall be n~ne.'"~Sir Francis Bacon also recalled the childhood prophecy, but he remembered it as: "When hempe is sponnd England's Scots recognised the prophecy in a fom which differed stiU Mer. The FWzoIe Prophecies of

Scotlmd, republished in London in 1603, revised the old prophecy as: "When HEMPE is corne and also gone, SCOTLAND & ENGLAND shali be all one."62 This prophecy clearly had variations, but they aii pointed in the same direction Elizabethans generally believed the "Hernpe" to represent an acronyrn for the last five reigning monarchs: Henry

ViII, Edward VI, Mary, Philip, and Elizabeth. It is possible that the hempe prophecies may have originated during Ehbeth' s reign when Enghshmen began to suspect that the

Queen would not produce any progeny. According to the established laws of prïmogeniture, a Scottish descendent of Henry VTI would have the best daim to succeeci

" Ibid., 21 1. 59 ibid., 193. 60 Sir John Harington, A Tract on the Succession to the Crown (AB. l602), Clements R Markham, ed. (New York: Burt Frankiin, 1970), 17. Howard Dobin, who mistakedy refers to the author of the hact as "Sir Henry Harington", has argdthat Harington was ahid to publish the tract on succession before the rei-g monarch had di& See Howard Dobin, Mmlin 's Disciples- Prophecy, Poeby and Power in Renaissance England (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), 1 11. to the throne. It is also possible that the prophecy may have been contrived by

Elizabethan Catholics who feared that the Protestant monarch would bring their nation to ni@ the inclusion of his Catholic Majesty, Philip, within the list of monarchs might further suggest a Catholic hand. During Elizabeth's reign many had feared that the prophecy hinted that Engiand would be lost in a state of chaos and confusion on the Queen's death, but Harington pohted out that it could also be interpreted to suggest that England would be peaceably subrnerged in a new nm~e.~'Bacon similarly argued that HEMPE would mean only a change of name. AIthough he displayed a raiïonalist's contempt for people who believed in such prophecies and superstitions, Bacon did not trouble hirnself to refute any in particular, especially since many supporteci his political position.64Thus English and

Scottish propagandists invoked, or at lest gave tacit approval to, prophecies and fictitious precedents in their appeals for a British monarchy. To conMnce most legislators, however, real and substantive precedents had tu be found from hist~~.~'

Many propagandists recognised the importance of history in these debates and presented historical precedents to justify the alteration in the names of the kingdoms. In the Commons' arguments against a united Bntain, members had asserted that no real precedent existed either at home or abroad for a change in name without a conques of sorne sort first taking place. Thomborough's Discourse refuted the suggestion that ail name changes renilted fiom conquests, claiming that blood descent could also permit a

" Dobin, Merlin 's Disciples, 1 12. Ibid. 63 Harington, A Tract on the Succession to the Cmwn (A. D. I602}, 17- 19. 64 Dobin, hferlin S Disciples, 132-34- 65 Henry VI1 was an early opportunist who had similarly employed prophetic assertions for political reasons, portmying himself as the Werof Merlinic prophecies which portendeci the return of Arthur in a time of crisis. He merrevealed bis support for prophecies and mythical precedents by adopiing the monarch to alter both his royal style and the names of his dominions. He cited the

precedent of Charles 1 of Spain who "united in the common name of Spaine divers other

his kingdomes, wherof two of them; namely Aragon and Cade, descended to him in right

of b10ud."~~The Bishop couid not fàthom why the Commons would deny the change by nght of blood since God's divine favour was clearly evident: 9he Objectors acknowledge uniting of kingdoms in case of conquest. 1mameil they do it not much more by nght of bloud.. . in this right of bloud, God giveth blessing to natures worke?' The Spanish pardel was dso recognised by the author of A treatise about the Uhion who claimed that the Iberian States had joined under Spanish leadership peacefùily.68He fhrther noted that the custom of refeming to the several kingdoms as Spain or the Spanish Empire had gradually led to intemal changes over the!' James and his pro-union supporters hoped that through the alteration of the name and royal style, national changes would be advanced in a fashion sunilar to the Spanish precedent.

Mer proving that a precedent existed for a name change generally, propagandists then forwarded arguments and precedents for the adoption of the narne of Britain specifïcally. Proponents of Britain had to prove that it represented not an innovation, but rather the restoration of an old and honourable name. Thornborough insisted that the alteration did not necessitate "the erecrion of a new kingdome, and a dissolution and extinguishment of the old but should instead be termed a:

.-. ------red dragon banner of CadwaUadar and naming his fi&-boni son Arthur. See Dobin, Merlin 's Disciples, 5 1. 66 Thombrough, A Discourse PIaineiy Proving the evident utïlitie and urgent neceme of the desired happie Union of the two famous Kingdomes of England and Scotland, 3. 67 Ibid., 3. 68 A îreatise about the Union of England and Scotland, in Galioway and Levack, eds., The Jucobean Union, 6649. restitution and reparation both of name and honor: for divers his Majesties most noble Progenitors, have heretofore bene entitled (as Chronicles tell us) Kings of& Britaine: as Henry the second King of al Britaine... whose son John had also in his coine stamped, as is to be shewed, Iohannes Rex ~torzurn.And before the conquest of the Saxons, it is certain that the whole Ile was called by the name of B ritain. 70

According toThornborough, the earlier change of name had taken place &er the Saxon conquest of parts of the island. In an attempt to dissolve the nation of the Baons by depnvuig them of their name, the Saxon King Egbert declared that the land under his control would thereafter be named England and its inhabitants English. Thomborough hplored: "let none therefore feare to restore his country to his old name, and auncient honor: for Egbert is dead, and king JMS liveth.. . the Soveraigne bringeth no innovation of a new name, but restitution of the old, no dissolution, but fortification.""

A heatise about Union echoed this argument, noting that the change to Britain did not mean the extinction of earlier names and the establishment of a new one. Both the

Greeks and Romans had used Britain as a name for the British Isles in ancient times?

The historian Savile offered Merdetails of ancient precedents, spedically citing

Tacitus' use of 'âritania" and Ptolomy's references to Great Britanny and Lesser

~ritann~.'~In the dark period after the Romans' departure, Savie noted, Vortigern called himself"Rex Britaniae" and Ambrosius styled hunsetfc'MonarchaRegni Britonum,

69 Ibid., 63-64. 'O Thomborough, A Discourse Pfainely Proving the evidenl utilide and urgent necepilie of the desired happie Union of the two famous Kingdomes of fighnd and Scotland, 5-6. " Ibid., 6-7. '' A treatise about the Union of England and Scotlond in Galloway and Levack, eds., The Jacobean Union, 66-69. John Russeil, an Edinburgh lawyer, agreed that Elritain was not in fact a new name, but disagreed with the suggestion that the two kingdoms would not be dissolved by the aiteration. Mead he argued that with the advent of "the kingdome of Great Britanie, the names of Scotland and hgiand [ought] to be putt in oblivioiin, in semblable maner as the houses of York and Lancaster ar foryett eftir the unioun thairof in ane kingdome-"See John Russell, A treatise of the happie and blisred Unioun in Galloway and Leva&, eds., Tïte Jacobean L'nion, 135. monarch of the British kingdomes." Pondering ''whether the title of King of Britany be an hovation or a renovation," Savile had litîle option but to conclude that it was indeed a renovation? Savile and the author of the anonymous Treatise had produced precedents f?om antiquity and Thornborough had raised relatively recent medieval Nomprecedents for the use of Britain. Citing an even more immediate precedent, Robert Pont made reference to Protector Somerset's use of the label "Britons" as a collective tenn in the late

1540s to describe the island's inhabitants when he proposed a Union to accompany the anticipated marriage of Edward VI and Mary of ~cotland.'~Since the Scots had viewed this proposal as a union by force of anns, however, most northem writers steered clear of

Edwardian precedents.

Despite the many precedents supporting the validity of Britain as a viable name for the King's dominions, the appellation did not command the same respect and ernotional attachent f?om the subjects of James VI and 1as did the names of England and Scotland.

The issue of honour and prestige weighed heavily in the minds of both Scots and

Englishmen; both were reluctant to part with th& traditional names for fear of losing pride at home and status abroad. In his diatribe against union, Sir Henry Speiman concedeci that the adoption of Bntain wouid not be an innovation, but stiu rejected the name, asserting that: "ifthe honorable name England be buried in the resurreaion of

73 Savile, Historicall Collections in Galloway aud Levack, eds., me Jacobean Union: 209. '' Ibid., 2 1 1. The invocation of the names of Vortigern and Ambrosius, frequently associated with King Arthur, suggested a connection between Britain and the Arthurian legend, but Sade was carefirl not to mention by name the mytho-historical figure, whose actual existence was questionabie. Arthurian allusions were not veiled in the work of John Dee, a philosopher, scientist and court astrologer who had traced Queen Elizabeth's lineage back to the "British Empire" of King Arthur during her Metirne. See Dobin, Merlin 's Disciples, 2 1If. Savile's reluctance to cite Arthurian Britain as a precedent may in some ways serve to indicate Merthe extent to which Angio-Saxon orienteci, Camden-infiuenced historicai writing had becorne main.ctream. '' Robert Pont, Of the Union of Britayne in Galloway and Levack, eds., The Jacobean Union, 29-3 1. Albion or Bntannia, we shdl change the goulden beames of the sonne for a cloudy day, and drowned [sicl the giory of a nation triumphant through all the worlde to restore the memory of an obscure and barberous people" who are rnentioned only in histones as a

conquered and subject peoples.76 The anonymous author of A treatise about the Union

countered Spelman' s arguments, and similar ones voiced earlier in parliament, insisting that England's glorious past would not be obscured by the alteration, noting that history cannot change as long as rnernory exists. Attempting to console his readers by claiming that tune would make the name more acceptable and pleashg, he asserted that the memory of the ancient name of Albion or "Great B&anieY' should carry its own

"recommendation of honor" fkom associations with its past geatness?' While this anonymous author believed that the name possessed an ancient honour which ought to have been dcient to recomrnend its adoption, he also recognised that many people would not accept the name until time had produced positive contemporary associations.

The author believed that the honourable name of Britain ought to elicit immediate respect abroad and refùted the Commons' claims that the alteration of the royal style would adverseiy affect the realms' foreign affairs; Brïtain would actually evince more power and

England would gain prestige through its association with the more dentKingdom of scotland.

Many Englishmen would have recoiled fiom the suggestion that their nation's status was elevated through associations with Scotland: to acknowledge this as fact they would have had to concede that the depised northern kingdom deserved a place equal to

76 Spehaq Of the Union in Galloway and Levack, eds., The Jacobean Union, 170. 77 A treatise about the Union o/EngZand and Scotland in Galloway and Levack, eds., The Jacobean Union, 72-74. or before England in tenns of international precedence. Chauvinistic arguments about the

superiority of one kgdom over another, expressed by both English and Scottish

polemicists, threatened to thwart unionists' endeavours to effect both a name change and

an equitable national accommodation. In an effort to prove English pre-eminence over

Scotland, Spelman appeaied to valid histoncal precedents, recalluig the x.ictories of

AtheIstan's Saxons and Cnut 's Danes over Scotland and both rulers' subsequent assertions of overlordship. In a dubious interpretation of the Scottish Wars of

Independence, he also discussed the medieval overlordship which England attempted to assert over Scotland, fudging details to suit his argument. Ignoring completely the efforts of the Bmces and Edward III's acknowledgement of Scotland's çovereignty, he referred exclusively to the Baliols' collusion with the Plantagenets. Spelman even claimed that the fact that En&h kings had never bothered to include Scotland in th& royal styIe meant that that had always treated Scotland as an absorbed dependency, iike an earldom or duchy, and unworthy of specinc mention. Due to its perceived histoncal subordination to

England, he insiçted thaî ScotIand ought to give up its name and be annexed officially by the southem kingdom. The most expedient solution to both the name and union problems was shply to absorb Scotland into the Larger and more prestigious Engtish kingdom.79

Spelman's only concession to reaiity was a grudging acceptance of the fact that since the

King ofEngland was a Scot by birîh, his fust kingdom could not simply be assimilated tike

Wales had been in the previous ~entury.'~

Ibid., 72. 79 Spelman, Of the Union in Galloway and Levack, eds., The Jacobean Union, 16546. Spelman did not consider that the omission of Scotland in the rqai style was actually due to the fhct that Scotland was stiU a sovereign kingdom and not in the possession of the English monarch. mlbid., 168. Scottish propagandists were not themselves fiee of national chauvinism, although they tended to proffer their c1ai.m~with a greater measure of caution and tact. While the

Scottish author of A treatise about the Union of EngImzd and Scotland asserted that

Scotland was actualiy the dominant partner in the new relatiooship, he revealed a more accommodating prescription on how to proceed in the matter of both the name change and union more generally. Since Scotland was more ancient and had never been conquered by foreign invaders, England ought to be considered an accessory to Scotland:

the kingdom of Scotland is no lesse ancient, and much more fiee of foreine conquests then England. And since his Majestie having by himself, and his noble ancestours, possessed Scotland these two thowsand years ago, hath now of late acquired the crowne of England by succession, England would appear to be accessorie to Scotland, and so to deserve a second place only in his Majestie's stik8'

Faced with the option of being listed below Scotland, the author conciliatorily hoped that the English wodd welcome the equaiity inherent in the adoption of the neutral name of n ri tain.'* This defensive tone and willingness to compromise in the narne issue, however, revealed the extent to which the English pretensions claimed the imaginations of rnost of the participants in the debates. WhiIe English polemicists frequently voiced chauvinistic claims to supremacy unnibstantiated by feasible historical or legal evidence, suggestions of

Scottish precedence had to be tendered very carefiilly with circumspection to avoid immediate condemation in England. The English would not accept a status subordhate to Scotland and the Scots realised that they could realistically hope for nothing better than the use of the neutral tenn Britain.

'' A treatise about the Union of England and Scothnd in Galloway and Leva* eds., The Jacobean Union, 73. 89' Ibid. The utilisation of a neutral name for the King's dominions was a crucial step in efforts to erode those statu barriers which divided the Scottish and English nations;

Britain served to remove distinctive national identifiers, promoted equality and assisted in the integration of the subjects of two kingdoms. Some pro-union propagandists recognised the importance of Anglo-Scottish equality in any union arrangement, arguing that national distinctions needed to be blurred and erased. In "Articles touching the

Union", Bacon drew on Anstotle's Politics, to support his claim that "the root of ail aivision and dissension in commonwealths.. . is equallty and inequality."83 In the case of

England and Scotland, the most probable "c~cultieswill Se in the conceit of some inequality, whereby the realm of Scotland may be thought to be made an accession unto the realm of ~n~land."~Bacon believed that James' assumption of one "imperial" crown of Britain, '?O be used for tirnes to corne," would assist in the incorporation the nations

0x1 equal terms for: "The compaunding of the two crowns is equal. The calling of the new crown the crown of Britain is equai." He conceded, however, that the coronation location of Westminster, "the ancient, august, and sacred place for the hgsof England, may seem to make inequality".85 To circumvent this diniculty, he suggested that subjects in both realms had to consider themselves as part of a single British nation rather than as members of separate ones: the capital could therefore be presented as merely being in South Britain rather than in ~n~land?

83 Sir Francis Bacog "Certain Articles or Considerations touching the Union of the Kingdoms of Engiand and Scotlandn in Spedding, The Works of Francis Bacon, X,228. '' Ibid., 225. Propagandists arguing in favour of Britain laboured not only to assuage Scottish fears of subjugation and assimilation, but also worked to molliS> English apprehension about the favouritism that might be lavished by the King on his northem subjects. Pont asserted that afker the establishment of Britain, James could not show special fàvour towards either the Scots or the English for:

will he not now, being the sole heir of Britaine by vertue of the uaited blood royail, shew himselfindifferent to all Brittons? Especially when their shal be a commixion of the commonwealth and blood of both nations, that a Scot in thewill not be knowen Born an ~n~1ishrna.n.~~

In Britain, the labels of Scot and English would gradudy fade fiom memory and former status distinctions would be erased: equality between the north and south would become the ideal. Savile also noted how James' mother had herselfmade a similar proposal for the creation of Britain, astutely recognising the need to promote equaiity to address conflicts over national precedence. Echoing an anecdote which haG already been articulated in the

Cornons, Savile recaiied Mary's suggestion that she assume the title Queen of Brittany,

"the better to take away ail jealousy fiom them from the difference which rnight breed between them by the divers denornination [sic] of one nation over the ~ther."~'Queen

Mary, her son James, and many contemporary propagandists understood the importance of status equality in any endeavour to unite the peoples of the north and south.

James and the pro-Britain polemicists suggested that the name would also help fiatemal feelings of mutual love to develop between the Scots and English, as individuals began to ident@ with a single British nation. In "Articles touching the Union," Bacon annomced that Jamesyprimary goal of union was '20 imprint and inculcate into the hearts

87 Pont, Of the Union of Britayne in Galloway and Levack, eds., The Jacobean Union. 28. 88 Savile, Historicall Collections in Galloway and Levack, eds., The Jacobeun Union, 208. and heads of the people, that they are one people and one nation."8g The name of Bntain

would help bis çubjects to adjua ernotionally to the union. The author ofAtreatrse abmî

the Umon of EngImd and Scotland niggested that a common name would help the two

nations to forget the? fonner animosities and jedousies; mutuai love would brkg about a

new conjwction of the two kingdoms where bloodshed had previously failed? He

asserted that the adoption of the name "Great BntannieY7or "Aibiod' and the anniution of

the name of either "Albanis or Bnttons to both the people, mi& carrie much impression

of amite and be no sdband to knit together the two peoples the fater."gL To please

those who insisted on precedents for almost every action and argument, he pointed out

that proposkg a name alteration to warm the hearts of the English and Scots towards one

another was not a new motive. Protector Somerset, in the event of an Edwardian Anglo-

Scottish union, would have favoured a name change "hopping thereby to induce both the

nations to mutudl love and tenderne~se."~'Savile agreed that the cultivation of mutual

afEction would be the greatest positive result of the name change: "The only benefit] that

cm tmly be alledged for an union in name is for that it is conceived the antient enmity and

hem burning between the two nations wiu by that meanes be the beeter and sooner

qualified and quenched, when they shall commUDicate not only in the head, but in the name

89 Bacon, "Certain Articles or Considerations toucbing the Union" in Spedding, The Worhof Francis Bacon, vol. X.: 227. * A treatise about the Union of England and Scotland in Galloway and Levack, eds., The Jacobean Union, 48,6243. The author was in large part responding directiy to the Cornmons' assertion that no practicai benefits wodd accrue from the change in style and that it wodd ody create complications. '' Ibid., 61. Ibid., 62-63. This was an unusually favourable interpretation f Somerset's policy by a Scot. of the body"? The two nations, with their hearts joined in mutual love, would gradually

assimilate so that only one British nation remained.

While many of these authors agreed on the name of the integrated nation James would head, they did not always agree on the precise style the monarch ought to assume as the derof the Britoos. While some polemicists argued that the monarch of the reconstituted British realm should bear the title of emperor, others asserted that the rank of king ought to remain suIficient. In 1604 Pont wrote that: "the profitt that to this our

Great Brittaine, Ireland and the adjoyning Brittish isles undoubtedlie happen, in that they are now reduced to the rnonarchicall obedience of one emperor."94 Mers vehemently recoiled fkom aqsuggestion that the regal union created a new Stuart empire. In April

1604, when members of the Lower House had expressed their reservations over the change in the royal style to refl ect Britain generally, they took special exception to the title of emperor. Members of the Commons claimed that "The Name of Ernperor is impossible" and that "No particular kingdom cm make their King an Emperor." To console those who wanted to see lames' title made imperiai, members explained that:

"The Name of King [is] a sweet Narne [withj Plenitude and Power in it."'' Outside of parliament, Savile dismissed the title "Imperator" out of hand, derisively suggesting that it was a "name the Spanish htheir pride sometimes have us~rped."~While James refkiined frorn personally insisting on the titie of emperor, his restraint did not prevent him fiom

" Savile, Hisforicall Collections in Galloway and ma& eds., The Jacobean Union, 206. 94 PO* Ofle Union of Brifayne in Galloway and Levack, eds., The Jacobean Union, 5. 95 Journal of the House of Commons, I, 183. The tem 'Empire' could generally be applied to any sovereign state which recognised no higher authority. Claire McExhern notes that after the Eaglish Reformation Henry Vm stated in the preamble of an Act that: This reah of Engiand is an Empire." Members of Parliament may have feared, howeveq that the titie of Emperor, which held autocratic occasiondy referring to his dominions informally as an empire. In his speech to parliament on 3 1 Mach 1607, James announced that financial diaiculties had to be borne out because "if the Empire gaine, and become greater, it is no natter."^^ Propagandists offered no precedent of a monarch taking the title of Emperor upon himself arbitrarily and

James probably would not have wanted to accept the title from parliament, even if the

Commons had been willing to impart it; the titles claimed by the monarch were his by divine right and could not be bestowed by an earthly authority.

The reluctance of the Commons to adopt the name of Britain combhed with the urging of Bacon, prompted James to alter the royal style and the name of his dominions by royal proclamation. In early October 1604, Bacon, who had gained lames's confidence, cautiously suggested that the King rnight attain greater honour if he waited for parliament to petition him to adopt the change, even though it had fded to enact an alteration in the previous session.* Bacon astutely recognised that the Commons was &eIy to present such a petitior~however, so James would have to take a step that wodd reap less than ideal results ifhe wanted to effect the change. Rhetoncally, he wondered: '%hether it were not better for your Majesty to take that alteration of stile upon you by proclamation, as Edward the third did the stile of France, than to have it enacted by ~arliament."~~

While parliament's refusal to support a formal union of England and Scotland had made an independent royal initiative necessary, James may have in fact intended to use a

associations, codd encourage the çovereign to act in a more arbitrary thhion. See Chire McEachern, The Poetics of English Nationhood, 1590-1612 (Cambridge:îambridge University Press, 1996), 1, 146. % Savile, Historicall Collections in Galloway and Levack, eds., The Jacobean Union, 2 10. 97 James 1, King of Great I3riîai.q "Speech 31 Mar& 1607," in So~merville,ed., Political Writings, 171. " Bacon, &CeRainArticles or Considerations touchiog the Union" in Spedding, The Works of Froncis Bacon, X, 226. Ibid., 226. proclamation anyway. As with the title of emperor, James may have wanted to avoid the suggestion that the titie came fkom a popular election of some ma. He was king of

Britain by birth and divine right; he did not need any confkmation in his title fkom

The King may have pragmatically timed the proclamation for 20 October 1604 to further his unionist agenda. James proclaimed himself"King of Great Brittaine, France and ~reland"'~'on the sarne day that the Anglo-Scottish Commission for the Union was supposed to begin deliberations. Scottish commissioners had yet to arrive in London, however, and the meeting had to be postponed until a week later.lo2 By adopting the royal style at an opportune the, the shrewd King may have hoped to create positive momentum for the impending union discussions. According to Bacon, the King certainly wanted the common narne to assist in the union of the two nations. In a ciraft for the proclamation, Bacon asserted that the King was "resolved and fixed that it [the name

lmJeq Wormdd asserts that the King's arbitrary actions were interpreted by some to have been a muscle-flexïng endeavour aimed at warning Pariiament that fmîaimd recalcitrance could be overcome by the use of the royal prerogative. She insists that the use of devices such as proclamations to enforce the royai will was amide& unacceptable by English contempoMes. See jmyWormald, 'The Union of 1603" in Mason, ed. Scots and Brrtons, 38. This view duectly &es Bruce GaUoway 'searlier cb that: "James's authority to take the name of Great Britain into his style by proclamation was unquestioned." See Bruce Gdloway, The Union of England and Scolland, 1603-1608 (Edïnburgh: John Donald, f 986), 6 1. Despite debates which arose ovm the way in the which the alteration was effected, Spedding points out t6at the proclamation brought a practical union into being. He claimeci that as of 20 October 1604 "the kingdoms were thenceforth unitecl in the King's style and tiîie, witfiout any contestation, difEcuity or inconvenience: and so remsined* See Spedding, The Flforks of Francis Bacon, X,240. 'O1 James I, King of Great Britain, "A Proclamation concerning the Kings Majesties Stile, of King Britain, & c. wesbninster 20 October 1604]" in James F- Larkin and Paul L. Hughes, eds., Stuart Royal Proclamations, Volume Ir Royal Proclamations of King James 1, 1603-1625 (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1973), 97. There was no suggestion thaf IreZand ought to be included in the name of Great Britain since "islands of the western ocean seem by nature and providence an entire empire in themselves." Bacon wondered, however, wheîher Ireland ou@ to supersede France. See Baco~"Certain Articles or Considerations touching the Union" in Spedding, The Works of Francis Bacon, X, 226. lm The Commission was to comprise 48 Engiish and 3 1 Scots who wodd meet on equal terms. See Spedding The Works of Francis Bacon, X,240. Great Britain] may conduce towards this happy end of the better uuiting of the nations."'O3

James clwly expressed these ideas in the body of the adproclamation: "Unitie in name being so £ita meanes to imprint in the hearts of people, a Character and memonall of that

Unitie, which ought to be amongst them i~~deede."'~~The King and Bacon both realised, however, that the elucidation of good intentions and a shcere desire to see mutual love join the nations would be insufficient to sa* the members of the Commons who had earlier opposed the change; James had to provide Brito-skeptics with concrete justification for his actions.

Perhaps anticipating resistance to the new style, James oEered precedents to just* the alteration and reassurances that English laws would aot be af5ected. To eclipse any protests which might arise over the legal implications of the name change and in direct contradiction to the judges' earlier pronouncement before the Lords, the King declared that the style would not affect "any legd proceeding, Instrument, or Assurance, untill fùrther order be taken in that behaKe-"'05 Bacon had advised James that if he instituted the name change by means of a proclamatioq it "altereth no law" as the jurists had suggested.'06 To saris@ the legally-minded that the name was not an innovation of any sort, James drew on precedents siinüar to the ones outlined in pro-Britain propaganda.

The proclamation announceci that the "two rnightie Nations" had been joined in amient times and that the name of Bitah could be observed in classical 'Wistories, in aU Mappes

lmSir Francis Ba- "A Draught of a Proclamation Touchiog his Majesty7sStile, prepared, not useb" in Spedding, The Works of Francis Bacorr, X ,239. '04 James 1, "A Proclamation concemhg the Kings Majesties Sue, of King Bru& c." in Larlan and Hughes, &S., Stuarî Royal Proclamations, I, 96. Ibid., 97. and Cartes, wherein this Isle is descnbedYY .107 After centuries of bloody warfare and ilL-

feeling had atflicted the isle foflowing the divisioq God had nnally graced Bntain with the

"Reuniting of these two mightie, famous, and ancient Kingdomes of England and

Scotland, under one Imperid ~rowne."'O8 Invohg providence, James portrayed himself

as God's divine instrument sent to restore the British nation; it was di£ficult for ad-

unionists to argue against the name resurrected by God's Lieutenant on earth.

Only days &er the proclamation, John Gordon, a Scot and Deacon of Sarum,

delivered a sermon in favour of union before the court in which Merthemes of

providence and the divine nature of the name alteration figured prominently.lOgThe

sermon ought to be viewed as a piece of pro-Britain propaganda contrived to hammer into

the hearts of Englishmen that the King was acting as God's agent in the performance of a

divine mission. It presented a defence for James' assumption of the new royal styie and

exhorted feliow "Britons" to embrace the godly union which the King embodied. Gordon

emphasised the evils of division and argued in favour of a national union between lames'

northem and southern subjects. Indeed, throughout his sermon, Gordon conspicuously

avoided the use of the divisive terms England and Scotland. Obeying James' proclamation

to the letter, he referred almost exclusively to South and North Britain in place of the

former Iangdoms. In some ways, Gordon's sermon encapsulated most of the arguments

which had been previously put fonvard by other pre-proclamation propagandists. He

106 Bacon mggesteci that a change of names on the Great Seal, however, might not be legd withouî an act of Parliament See Bacon, "Certain Articles or Considerations touching the Union" in Spedding, me Works ofFrancis Bacon, X., 226-27. IM James T, "A Proclamation concerning the Kiags Majedes Stile, of King Britain, & c." in Larkin and Hughes, eds., Stuart Royal ProcI~~~~~tions,i, 95-97. 'O8 Ibid., 95. 109 Gordon, Enaikon or a Sermon of the Union of Great Brittannie. discussed the historical precedents, the significance of prophecy, and the need for equality in the Anglo-Scottish national union, but also expanded on the providential argument for union which James had bnefly touched on in his proclamation The essential difference between Gordon and his precursors was that he did not shy away fkom invoking notions of providence and God's wiU to support his claïms.

In his recoilection of precedents for a united Britain, Gordon coloured his historicai accounts with spirituai reflections. Gordon believed that the inhabitants of the

British Isles had previously been united in ancient times and that they had, through misfortune, become divided:

the est inhabitants of this little world, of great Brittannie, (who are cded by Virgil, divis? tutu orbe Britmzni,) were in the beginnllig borne of one Father, but amongst themselves by bretheren divided, who could not live together in love and amitie: ofthis division, which hath beene for many yeers, many desolations did fdl out, in the whole Island by sudry cnieli, & bloody wars: yet in our daies God hath shewed his mercy wonderfidly towards us in unihg us al under one head.. . . Therefore let every man thinke, that it is, both agreeable with law, and reasoq that we be no more two kingdomes, but one, seeing we all confesse to have onely one head, and one bg."O

Part of the blame for the continuation of these ancient divisions was attributed to the brutish and pagan Saxon invaders who conquered and dispersed the Britons, many of whom were ~hristian.'" The reconstitution of the glorious British nation under James was depicted as a special blessing fkom God and an achieveinent which no man ought to impugn. Indeed, Gordon believed that the proclamation had been divineIy inspired, interpreting <'therestitution of this amcient name of great Britannie, by the Kings most excellent Maiestie to have corne, by the very motion, and instigation of Gods holy

110 Ibid., 20-21, also see 7. Il' Ibid., 48. By declining to make any reference to the pro-Bnton ArtEiurian legend as he could have, he reveais both his Ieaming and the Muence of Camden-iaspued contemporary historiopphy. spirit." l l2 He suggested that even without God's hand in the restoration of Bntain, however, the name's application in the south shodd be viewed favourably by Englishmen.

Gordon praised James for reinstituting the ancient name rather than imposing a new one. The minister stemly wamed the subjects of "South Britain" Uiat they ought to be gratefid for the King's moderation in naming the restored kingdom Great Britain when he codd have simply incorporated Engiand into Scotland: "by the Khgs M. Prerogative and priviledge, seeing that the South part is fden to his royd person, both by the lawe of

Go4 and nature; the name of the former kingdome might have beene imposed to this kingd~rne."~"The King proved both his rqpmbityand generosity, however, in his refiisal to make an innovation in the naine of his new southen realm for:

he hath not used his owne prerogative in bringing in a new name in this kingdome of the South: But he hath onely restored the ancient name of great Bntannie, both to the South and North. To the end that he might extirpat the very seede of division... For by this name of Britannie' which is as much Gods covenant we are united both in the corporali, and spirituall kingdom.

This suggested that James' motives in altering the name were hdamentally unselfish and benevolent -the King sought to eliminate national divisions by removing the distinct names which formed the very pith of the evil which had kept the peoples of the north and solah apart for so long.

Gordon's sermon placed a particular emphasis on the evils of division and argued that union in all things was the most blessed and divine state of being. The deacon described Satan as "the very fountaine, & welspring of aü divisions, both in the kingdome

"'Ibid., 28. IL' Ibid., 29. The mere suggestion that Scotland's name could be imposed probably heated the blood of more than a few of his English listeners, especially when the suggestion was deiivered with a Scottish accent not belonging to the King. "4 Ibid., 30. of God and The division of man nom God led to the exile of Adam and Eve nom Eden and the division between men brought about Cain's fiatricide upon ~be1.l'~

Such intemecine struggies codd and ought to be avoided in Britain, so he cited Biblical passages as examples "for the instruction of these, whom God and his Lieutenant hath assembled at this time, to mate of the performance of this godly worke, of the Union of this Iland in one kingdome."117 A national union between the people of Noah and South

Britain was necessary to end the island's evil division once and for all. This union must begin in the hearts of men for:

division is rooted in the soule, hart, and rninde of man, whereby we are taught that union which is contrarie to division, must begin in the hart and soule of man. Therefore let ail men that love Go4 who is the God of union, and enemy to division, gratiousty dispose their soules, harts, and minds to the performance and accomplishrnent of this blessed Union of this Iland. 'l8

The reunion of the English and Scottish nations in Britain was a godly endeavour. Out of love and fear of God, the inhabitants of the British Isles had to accept the union or reject what was clearly Cod's plan.

In some ways, James' subjects seemed powerless to resist the union which Gordon portrayed as the inevitable fulfilment of a divine and ancient prophecy. The spiritual and

Godly foundations of a reunited Bitah, Gordon explained, were cleariy observable in the very name of Bntania: "the name l3nt-m-iah,was a propheticall name f?om the beginning, foreshewing that the covenant of God should be estabfished in this Iland, at the appohted time by God." Deconstnicfing the word 'Brit-an-iah' into its component elements, he asserted that it literally meant "covenant with ~od.""~Gordon described how the

"propheticall signification of the name Britamid' had first been Wedin the the of

Constantine; it was in Britain that the legions had acclaimed the first Christian Ernperor of

Rome. Constantine the Great had been the first derto embody the union of spiritual and

temporal authority, and with lames' proclamation, "the restoring of this auncient and

glorious name of Great Bntannie into one kingdome, under our newe Co1ZSfantim.f was

reali~ed.'~SirnpIy put, James was deshed to become a latter day Constantine and fulfil

the covenant prophesied in the very name of Britain as rufer of a realm specially blessed by

God.

Gordon recognised that the prophesied union had not fully corne about with the

regal union, however, but insisted that it was the culmination of a graduaf long-term

process. The first stage was Henry Vn's union of dynastic factions, next came Edward

VI's religious refonns. lames' khgsbip Mysignalled: "the uniting of England, and

Scotland together in the person of our gratious ~overai~ne".'~'The application of the

sacred name of Britain was presented as a blessing for which ail of James' subjects shouk

be grateful: "Let everie one of us blesse, and praise God, for the restoring of the sarne.

Let ail the subjects of this Iland thinke, that it is a great glory to them to be cailed

Britannes, that is to say the people of Gods covenant."'* With God's will clearly evident

and the ancient prophecy Med, the inhabitants of both the no& and south had little

choice but to consent to further union: those who opposed the King's nation-building

'19 Ibid., 24. '" Ibid., 46. It must be noted that Constantine was not actually a Christian at the thethat he was proclaimed Emperor. 12' Ibid., 47. Ir fiid., 29. efforts jeopardised their very souk In concluding his sermon, Gordon offemd a stem waming to his Listeners that: "by the Law of God and man our Great Britmie is no more two kingdomes, but one onely; He that opposeth himselfe against this holy Union, doth offend hïs ~od".'~For Gordoq continued division was simply not an option: "it is most evidently shewed to us, that our great Britaine being in our daies united in one language, in one religion, and under one head, one King and suprearne governour, we cannot by any law, be any more two dons, or two kingdomes, but only one."'" While Gordon unquestionably articutated his case for further union with admirable passion and impressive insight, his sermon probably did not win many converts for the Union cause.

Ln the weeks immediately following both the proclamation altering the royal styIe and the sermon, apprehension and uncertainty over the King's intentions became evident at court. Englishmen woadered what practid applications the proclamation would have and what the still somewhat iinfamiliar monarch might do next to merthe cause of uni or^ On 1 December 1604, the Venetian Ambassador tehgly wrote that: "As the King came into this crown by inheritance he desires to extinguish the names 'English' and

'Scottish' and that all should be cded '~~toas.'"~~methe Ambassador's letter demonstrated that he personaily grasped the national signincance of the new name, his observations also serve as an indicator of the suspicion with which the King's intentions were generally perceived at court. Some of the sceptics' fears about the negative effects of the change were further realised when the French Ambassador, agreeing with the

lZ3 Ibid., 50. It4 fiid., 33. '" CSPV,X, 195. judges' decision, asserted that the name of Britain wodd invalidate the treaties of bath

England and Scotland with rance. 12'

In reality, the proclamation allowed for only ktedapplication of the British narne and it had Little effect, either positive or negative, on the lives of most "Britons."

Specifically, it was to be used in missives, dedicatones inscriptions, and, as the French

Ambassador noted, treaties, but it was not to apply to any laws, instniments, or assurances.L27Taking the advice of Bacon, who insisted that the name could also be applied to currency by the royal prerogative, James included in his proclamation an order that all coins mintecl thereafter bare the name of Britain.12* Most people wodd thereby at least gain some access to British imagery on a regular basis. Despite the best efforts of

James and his army of sympathetic propagandists, however, the name of Britain did not gain widespread use or acceptance outside of the royal court.1w When Sir Wfiam

Maurice proposed another bill in the English House of Commons on 24 November 1606

IZ6 fiid. 127 James I, "A Proclamation conceming the Kings Majesties Stile, of King Bxitain, & c." in Larkin and Hughes, eds., Stuart Royal Proclamations, I, 97. James diverged significafltly hmBacon's advice when it came to the applications of the name. In his draft for the proclamation, Bacon had suggested tbat the name shodd be applied to the royal se& and offices and "benceforth in ail commissions, patents, wrÏts, processes, grants, reçords, instruments, impressions, sermons, and all other writings and speeches wtiawer, wherein our stile is used to be set forth or &te& that our said sue, as is by these patents declared and prescribes, be used and no other." See Bacon, "A Draught of a Proclamation Touching his Majesty7sStile, prepared, not d"in Spedding, The Works ofFrancis Bacon, X.,239. lZ8 Bacon, "Certain Articles or Considerations touching the Union" in Spedding, The Workr of Francis Bacon, X,227; James 1, "A Proclamation concerning the Kings Majesties Stile, of King Britain, & c." in Larkin and Hughes, eds., Stuart Royal Proclamations, I,97. Most of the new coins bore themes of Briiish unity, such as ''mitesn and -ritain crowns." For a detailed List of the new mncy's names and relative vaiues see James 1, "A Prociarnation concerning the alteration of the Prices of Gold [Newmarket, 23 November 16 111" in Larkin and Hughes, eds., Sruart Royal Proclamations, i, 272-76. 129 S. T. Bindoff points out that the Edinburgh parliament recognised the name of Great Britain in 1605 whiie its Engiish counterpart continued to resist. Engiand's refusal to adopt the name did nothrng to impme the aiready cool relations between the two kingdoms. He suggsts that a great national achievement would have probabfy been necessary, however, for the name to gain pop& support in England after its inauspicious proclamatory begidng. SeS. T. Bindoff, "The Stuarts and their Style," The English Historical Review, 60 (1945), 212-13. for the generai adoption of the name of "Great Brittayne," it received little debate, was quickly put off and was won f~r~otten.'~'The practical benefits of the name were for the most part minimal and after eight years, royal proclamations even fded to bear the new royal siyie with any consistency 13'

The effectiveness of the name of Britan in the erosion of national divisions is more dBicult to assess. It is very possible that the threat posed to both England and Scotland's national identities ody served to strengthen the fears and suspicion of their respective subjects of union in general. To James' credit, the debates over the name of Great Britain clearly brought his wishes for national integration into the open and provided him and his supporters with the opportunity to present arguments in favour of all aspects of the proposed union. Unfortunately for the Kin& however, they afso offered nationalist anti- unionists the forum to express their xenophobia and vitriolic national chauvinism. The perceived negative results of the alteration ought not to obscure the benevolent intent of the action: the King sought f2st and foremost to unite the hearts of his subjects in a union of love that would assist in the devefopment of a single British nation. With national union stated as the prhqobjective of the King's labours, the fdure of the aame to gain widespread acceptance was but a setback and not a defeat. While the name suffered rejection in parliament and generaily received only lipsenice in the country, it became commonly used at court. The debates over donlaid the mental foundations upon which the ideabseci British nation could be bdt; at court James was able to continue working to effect a national integration in tangible ways, Grst through the naturalisation of Scots in

13* MC2uccleuch, ILI, 108. 131 Larkin ami Hughes, eds., Stuart Royal Proclamations, 1. England, then through the orchestration of Angio-Scottish marnages, and hally through the quitable distribution of royal offices and honours. CflAPTmIII

Naturabation and Nationality, 1604-1608

Once James had proclaimed the Kingdom of Great Britaio and removed a visible synbol of division, the next step in his anticipated national union was making Scots and

Englishmen natural in both kingdoms. Naturalisation would erase parochial Merences in

Britain and gant all of the King's subjects the same legal rights and privileges.l Contrary to the conciliatory aims of unionists, however, the issue of naturalisation actually provoked fùrther division. The King's efforts to achieve this goal through legislation were repeatedly thwarted by a recalcitrant Enghsh House of Commons. Furthemiore, the parliamentary debates over naturalisation provided opponents of union with a forum for the espousal of xenophobic and nationalist sentiments. In this way, the naturalisation debates revealed both the extent of ill-feeiings and the challenges James faced as a nation builder. The suspicious English Commons favoured the status quo and laboured to prevent the antenati, those boni before James gained the English crown, from gaioùig any substaatial riasin England. Those supporting union won a victory in the matter of the posfnati, whkh wouid be felt when the next generation of Englishmen and Scots matured.

The King's eventuai acceptance of a poky of long-term and graduai integration shows not oniy his patient astuteness, but the failure of his policy of immediate union.

The de facto naturalisation of Scots at court seemed Little afFected by the parliarnentary debates. Even as the Commons refused to legislate a general naturalisation,

James employed his royal prerogative to gant Scottish members of his entourage offices, titles and other privileges normally reserved for Englishmen. A core group of Swttish courtiers developed in the early years of James' Englrsh reign who were to provide the foundation of a new British aristocracy. While the larger corpus of the mteM were denied the privilege of naturalisation, the King was able through these individuals to effect a modest integration at court. The national union which did to any extent occur, was therefore almost exclusively a union of people of substance - a union of aristocraties. The

English parfiament, despite the Commons' rnisgivings, was complicit in this endeavour.

Both houses consented to individual acts of naturalisation for many of the Scottish courtiers, even though the Commons steadfkstly opposed the granting of offices to any of these newcomers. The Lower House was not prepared to recognise the rights of any

Scots in England without limitations. After rnaking it clear that he would not permit his prerogative to be constrained by the dictates of parliament, the King grudgingly accepted that restrictions imposed on the rights of the naturalised mtenati were a necessary short- term concession in the interest of union.

When James issued his proclamation for the change in the royal style in October

1604, he acknowledged the importance of mutual naturalisation, but seemed convuiced that the task of effecting it would be a simple matter. The body of the proclamation., claimed that the laws demanding 'Wahirali7litjon of Subjects" had "Ipso facto expirecl" according to persons "skilZlFuU in the laws of this One of the individuals skiiled in law from whom James had sought advice was Sir Francis Bacon. Since James' own views

' The Welsh and Irish already enjuyed the priviieges of nahiralisation in England They were already Iegaiiy subjectç of the King of Endand ad, as such, wiü not be considerai separately in this discussion. James l., King of Great Britain, "A Proclamation concerning the Kings Majesties Stile, of King Briîain, & c. Westminster 20 October 16041" in James F. Ladch and Paul L. Hughes, eds., Stuart Royal Proclamations, Volume 1: Royal Proclamations of King James 1, 1603-1625 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 95. on naturalisation were undoubtedly ï.duenced by the advice he received fkom Bacon, it is usefùl to look at some of the jurist's writings on the topic.

In Decernber 1603, Bacon presented a letter to the King in which he offered suggestions on successfully achieving union. In this "Brief Discourse Touching Unioq"

Bacon recognised that naturalisation would help to erase national distinctions and provide a foundation for merunion, but he clearly demonstrated that the task ahead would not be an easy one to accomplish. Bacon asserted that four types of union needed to take place for a perfect union to occur, "Union Ui Name, Union in Language, Union in Laws, and Union ui ~rn~lo~ments."~James' proclamation on the royal style would accsrnplish the kst, while centuries of intercourse between the two kingdoms had helped to produce the second. Aithough the union of laws had to be decided by the English and Scottish parliarnents, Bacon believed that the issue of the legal rights and fieedorns of Scots and

Englishmen was open to separate discussion Mutual naturalisation was something that

James could work on immediately; however, Bacon cautioned him against proceedùig too hastily. Bacon explained that among the Romans there had been four gradations of rights,

'Llus Conmbii, Jus C~tatis,Jus SufSi-ugii,and Jus Petitionzs or ho no^" and that these could find parailels in James7realms. Jus combiz, which merely granted individuals the fieedom to many people of any nationality, could be taken for granted and not given much thought. The other three degrees, however, received a good deal more discussion in both propaganda treatises and subsecpenf parliamentary sessions. Jus civïtafrS pertained to denizenation and naturalisation,jus suffiagii granted a voice in parliament and electiom, and juspetitioMs, the West attainable status, perrnitted a "place in counsel and office."' James hoped that mutual naturalisation would eventually gant ail of his subjects juspetitionzs in both northern and southem Britain. In this eariiest discourse on union,

Bacon did not anticipate the merences between the statuses of the antenati and the postnati, but rather discussed the English and Scottish peoples in a more collective and

general sense.

By October 1604, it had become clear to many jurists, including Bacon, that a

generational divide had to be aclmowledged between those individuals bom before and

after James had gained his English throne. In another letter to James in 1604, Bacon

disthguished between these two types of subjects:

For Subjection, 1 take the law of England to be clear, (what the law of Scotland is 1 know not), that dl Sconishrnen, from the very instant your Majesty's reign begun, are become denizens; and the p~st-~are naturalized abjects of England for the time forwards: for by our laws none can be Men but he that is of another degiance than our sovereign lord the KingYs.

While he saw thepostvrati as de jure naturaliseci, Bacon was also willing to concede a form of denizenation to the antenari. He also made it quite apparent that Parliament had no role in determining the status of thepostnati, for the existing laws already made their position clear:

as we see it evidently in the precedent of Ireland, who since they were subjects to the crown of England, have ever been inheritable and capable as nahiral subjects; and yet not by any statute or act of Parliament, but merely by comrnon Law, and the reason therof So as there is no doubt that every subject of Scotland was and is in like plight and degree, since your Majesty's coming in, as if your Majesty had granted particular letters of denization or naturaiiirrrtion to every of them; and the

SiFrancis Bacon, "A BrinDiscourse Touchiog the Happy Union of îhe Kingdoms of England and Scoiiand," in Spedding, d,The Works ofFrancis Bacon, X -96. With respect to the union of emplByments, Bacon niggesied Little more than thaî the King show "no more but an indifferent hand" when considering Englishmen and Scots for offices and preferments. ibid., 97-98. Sir Francis Bacon, "Certain Articles or Considerations touching the Union of the Kingdoms of England and Scouand* in Spedding, The Works of Francis Bacon, X, 223. post-natz whoUy natural. But then on the other side, for the time backwards, and for those that were ante-mti, the bIood is not by law naturalized, so as fhey cannot take it by descent fiom their ancestors, without act of ~arliament.~

Anticipating vguments against a general denizenation of the antenaii, Bacon recognised that some opponents of the King's plans would insist that they ought not to be considered denizens automaticdy. Since these indMduals codd not daim to have intierited their pnvileges, he suggested that an act of Parliament could be used to achieve an official recognition and clarification of their status. He believed that while the King could redise naturalisation through the use of his prerogative, by allowing Parliament to debate the issue of the mtend's stahis and pass legislation to that effect,the general naturalisation that was expected to follow would be rnuch more popular.7

Bacon was of course not the only person to offer the King written advice on naturalisation in 1604 and several other learned indMduaIs also produced union tracts which touched on the issue. But whereas Bacon's letters to the King were not intended for public consurnption, published treatises by other authors were designed not only to advise the King, but also to influence the proceedings of the English Parliament. The anonymous A frecztise op2 the Union of Engkmd and Scotlrmd appreciated the importance of naturalisation in the anainment of union of the two kingdoms:

that most special point of this incorporation consisteth in the mutuall communication of the habilites and fkedoms of denization or naturd subject... in such sorte that whosoever be native boni of this iland and naturd subject to his Majestie may, according to the qualitie of his condition of bûth or state be maid able to enjoy office, honor, benefice at the pleasour of his prince, and be parttaker of the common fieedoms and privileges of naturabation in either of the kingdoms where he shall make residence8

Ibid., 223. 'Ibid., 223. A treatise about the Union of England and Scothd in Bruce R Galloway and Brian P. Levack, eds., The Jacobean Union: Six Tracts of 1604 (Edinburgh: Scottish History Society, 1985), 6 1. Accordingly, James ought to employ his royal prerogative to provide his Engiish and

Scottish subjects with legal equality throughout the island of Britaui; parliament was not mentioued as an essential vehicle through which the mutual naturalisation would be consolidated.

This treatise argued that all of the King's British subjects shodd be entitied to identical privileges and rights and that the King had the ability to gant these fieedoms. It envisaged a new realm in which both Scots and Engiishmen codd conduct commerce as though natives of one "cornmonwealth." Mer mutual naturalisation had been realised, the subjects of both kingdoms, "being entertened with mutuall love" combined with a graduai

"mingeling of the nobilitie of both nations by reciproque mariages," equal justice under the

Iaw and peace in the borders, would forget their former divisions and dissolve into a single nationg Bacon agreed that tirne would gradudy cause the distinctions between the two nations to blur, but on a crucial point the Treatse was significantly less sophisticated than the English jmist's later letter - it did not explicitly differentiate between the pusmari and the antemti.

John Doddridge's "A Breif Consideracion of the Unyon", also wntten in 1604, bears a rnuch closer resemblance to the unionist writings of Bacon. A noted English lawyer, MP, and scholar, Doddndge also outlined the steps necessary for union, but his proposed path to union was not precisely the same.'' He asserted that union would ideally take three forms: first, through mutual naturalisation, second, through a union of laws, and

~bid.,61. IO Doddridge, a courtier, waç also a member of the Queen's Councii and a sergeant for the Prince of Wales. in 18 April 1604 he was selected to act as one of the Cornminsioners for Union, He wàs rewarded third, through a change of royal style so that both kingdoms shared the same narne. l l He not only shared Bacon's view that naturalisation did not first requke a political or legal union of any sort, but also suggested that it marked an essential precursory step towards fkther union:

There are sundrïe mersofwytinge of kingdomes under the govemment of one sovereigne. The first maie be called the unyon of f?eedome and denizacion. That is when the people of bothe kingdomes is made fkee of eche other nacion to enjoye equall liberties and immunytyes in both states and to be capable to purchace landes and beare office in eche other's domynyon without ympechement or regard of the want of naturaikacion or birth.I2

Like both Bacon and the anonymous author of A freatise on the Ur~ion,Doddridge argued that the King possessed both the power and the ability to naturalise anyone he chose through the use of his prerogative. He implicitly denied the necessity of parliamentary involvement in effecting naturalisation:

it is oneiie a benevolence and grace unto those that were borne before bothe kingdomes discended into one hande, and suche a grace it is, as the kinge of those nacions maie conferre and bestowe by his regall power without assent of the states. For it is a prerogative royd incident and belonginge to everie kinge to naturalise and make denizen whom he shall think expedient by bis chartre. And this manner of unyon is easiest to be assented unto, and a good grounde or foundacion of suche Merunytinge, which onely tract of tyme hath power to constitute, consolidate and make perfect.l3

James' personal actions in the process of naturalisation would lay the foundation for

"fkther unytingey' which included national union Doddridge' s statements suggested, however, that the royal prerogative should only be used to naturalise individuals rather than the whole of either nation generally. The prerogative of the monarch to grant the

for his service to the crown with the office of Solkitor-General of Engkmd in October 1604. See Gaiioway and Levack, eds., The Jacobean Union,lxi-hiü. Il Sir John Doddridge,A brief consideracion of the Unyon of twoe kingdomes in Galioway and Levack, eds. The Jacobean Union, 14839. l2 Ibid., 147. benefit of naturalisation to individuals was generally accepted. A number of relatively

recent Elizabethan precedents also existed for individuals being naturalised by act of

parliament at the crown's instigation. Although stiU uncornmon, the activity was not

Even the staunchly anti-unionist Sir Henry Spehan conceded that the King's

prerogative permitted him to naturalise individual Scots as he deemed fit. He thedore

urged his countryman to accept these transplantees with grace:

as the law hath gyven his Majestie a prerogative to admit such other amongste us as pleaseth hun, so let us embrace all those plantes of his hande with a eendely and loving ha.knowing th& as he that standeth un the topp of an hiU discovereth more than they in the vdey, so bis Majestie' s great wisdome from the heighte of his dignity, looking downe uppon us his humble subjectes of England, shall easly perceive what is expedient for us and will no doubt govern and moderate his hand to the glory of God and his own reno~ne.'~

The writïng has the resigned tone of a man who must accept something he deems

distastefi.& but cmdo nothing to prevent. His praise of James' wisdom can also be read

as a camouflage for what was a plea for royal moderation. The basis for Spelman's unease came fkom a variety of sources, not least the actions of James on behalfof Scottish

couaiers in the first year and three quarters of his reign as King of England.

Between March 1603 and October 1604, thirty-five named individuals had letters

of naturalisation confirmed by seventeen separate acts of parliament. Among these individuals, at least sixteen were Scots. The actuai number of Scots naturalised during tbis period was significantly higher, however, as five of the acts made reference to ~1]11~11i[1d

l3 lbid., 148. I4 On 7 March 1593, the son of a royal agent, Robert Sidney, Govemor of Roshing, bom abroad had ken naû.mkdby the Lords. In April 1593, the Commons had likewise agreed to naturaiise the child of a Marian émigré boni in Geneva. See "Manuscripts of the House of lords," Historical Manuscripts Conimission, Third Report, 7-9. wives and seven mentioned children. This meant that at least twenty-eight Scots were naturalised in England before the fkst sitting of the Commission for Union Akhough not great in number, the quality of those naturalised would have made these high profle cases.

The most prominent of the naturalised Scots included the Duke of Le~oxand his brother

Lord D'Aubigny, the Earl of Mar, Lord Kidoss and Sir George Hume, the Lord Treasurer of ~cotland.I6 As the next chapter will illustrate, Sir Thomas Ershe, Sir James Hay, Sir

John Ramsay, and Sir John Kennedy were but a few of the naturalised Scots who later rnarried English wives and helped to form the core of the new Anglo-Scottish, or British, aristocracy that James was working to create." The naturalisation of these high profle

Scottish antemi, when coupied with their subsequent appointments to offices, heightened trepidation among the English towards a general naturalisation and a massive influx of ~cots.'*

While Spelman, dong With the others, acknowledged the King's right to naturalise inavidual Scots through the use of his prerogative, he did not believe that a general naturalisation of the entire Scottish nation was possible without parliamentary approval.

He discouraged the crown nom pushing the issue, however, insisting that the negative reperntssions of a mutual naturalisation would far outweigh any benefits. A general naturalisation would hurt the crown financially, especially by depleting valuable customs, revenues, taxes, and the fees paid for individual naturalisations: "Kis Majestie's customes

l5 Sir Henry Spelmaq Of fhe Union in Gahway and Leva& eds., The Jacobean Union, 184. 16 The Journal of the House of Comrnons, 1, 176-365;and Journals of the Home ofLords, SI, 267-537. l7 The details of this policy are diçaissed in the following chapter. 18 The Duke of lennox, the Earl of Mâr, Sir George Hume, Sir James Elphinstone, Lord Kinioss were sworn in as rnembers of the English Pnvy Council on 4 May 1603. See Privy Couno'i Great Britab, Acts of the Privy Council of Engjand, 1601-1604, XXXII, 496-97. Additionally, Hume was also appointai ar the pretiouse stones in bis cro~ne."~~Whereas in the pst, Scottish "strangers7' in

England had also been obliged to pay double the taxes and subsidies levied on their

English counterpart~~a general naturalisation would exempt Scots fiom paying these higher rates? Spelman also speculated that nahiralisation through grace and the accompanying parfiamentary confirmation of letters patent carried fees that brought fùrther revenues to the crown. By eliminating the need for such confirmations, the crown would lose yet another hancial reso~rce.~'Mer drawing attention to the economic benefits of maintainhg the status quo, Spelman warned of further negative repercussions.

Spelman offered two additional arguments against a general naturalisation of Scots in the kingdom of England, economic and immigration repercussions. If Scots were made natural in England, commercial restrictions would necessarily be eliminated and an economic union of sorts would ennie. This would create a system of economic inequality in which the Scots gained unfair commercial advantages. English merchants would profit little fiom this new ewnomic relationship for: "in traque Scotland hath much neede of

England but not England of ~cotlande."~Furthemore, he asserted that: "They have need of oure wares, not we of their~."~Scotland had no industries that could benefit England and their cloth and wool was of inf'enor quality. The only Scottish export valued in

England was salt and salted fish. Conceding that England exported much grain to

Scotiand, Spelman believed that not much other trade occurred between the two

Keeper of the Great Wardrobe for He on I June 1603. See S. Lee, ed,Dictionq of National Biogrophy, iX, 1124. 19 Spelman, Ofthe Union in GaiIoway and hck,eds., The Jacabean Union, 173. 20 Ibid., 172. 2' Ibid., 173. 'Z fiid., 162. "Ibid., 172. kingdorns; few merchant trains even bothered to go that far n~rth.'~Most important7 however, was the suggestion that since Scottish vessels tended to charge significantly lower transport rates, their shipping would prosper to England's detriment? The naturalisation of Scots and the accompanying abolition of hostile laws would therefore produce a commercial atmosphere advantageous to the Scots and hmfùl to the English.

Refleaing some of the Scotophobia and scaremongering common in England,

Spelman also asserted that after a general naturalisation had been effected, a deluge of

Scots into England would ensue: "The English ar our family; shaii we then give awaye their breadde, which is their fieedomes and libertyes, unto straungers? Mak the Scottes fkeof Englande, what will be the ~e~uele?"~~The rhetoncal question was intended to prime his audience for a discourse on the negative repercussions of naturalising the Scots and granting them a legal status equai to that possessed by Enghshmen. Answers to the question came by detailing the ways in which Scots would appropriate positions, offices and weakh that rightly belonged to Englishmen:

First, many of their nobles and principal gentlemen wiil strive to seate themselves as neare the Coorte as they cann. And good reason they shoulde, for who doth not desier the influence of the sonne. But our houses, our landes, our lyvinges shall by that meanes be broughte upp in ail places. The citty and cuotry shal be replenisshed with Scottes. The Coorîe shd abounde with them not as passingers but as comrnorantes. And they having favour of the prince to begg and now capacitye by the lawe to take, shal not only obteyne leases and inheritances in ali partes of England, but the offices of State and govemment also. And whereas the Iawes of England do not pennitt the &en nor the denizen hirnseKe to beare any office touching the peace of the lande (no not the meane office of a cunstable), now by this union with the Scots shall becume capiable of the High Cunstableshipp of ail ~n~land.~~ In addition, Scortish clencs would flood England because of its greater opportunities.

Whereas previous generations of Scottish clerics had emigrated to the continent in search of work, fùture divines wodd head south to the richer spintuai pastures of ~n~land.~~

Spelman' s arguments agauist general naturalisation were not moderated by the obsequious praise seen in his comments on individual naturalisations, but those addressed the prerogative powers of the King.

Sir Hemy Savile aiso drew attention to some of the negative aspects of mutual naturalisation in his HistoricaIZ Collections. Like Spelmaq Sade argued that if the Scots were made natural, they would not be bound to pay "custornes as merchants and aliens," that all transportation would be fiee f?om tarifEs, and that this would produce a cornpetitive atmosphere detrimental to the interests of Enghsh rnerchant~.~His discussion of economic inequality, however, pointed out that Scots were considered natural and possessed speciai privileges in France. To achieve equality, either the Enghsh must share the çame liierties in France as the Scots, or the Scots must be required to give up the benefits of naturalisation in France before beùig made natural in England. Un& this was done, Scots should be forced to pay the same customs as other alien~.~'

Amid the chate of suspicion fostered by propagandists such as Spelman and

Savile, the Commission on Union began to meet on 29 October 1604. The Commission included nobles, lawyers, burgesses and merchants f?om both England and Scotland, and was mandated to address all the issues relative to union. Debates over naturalisation, however, occupied a disproportionate amount of the proceedings. The Commission

-

'8 fiid., 175-76. " Sir Henry Savüe, Historicail Collections in Galloway and Levack, eds.. The Jacobean Union, 238. 30 Ibid., 238. agreed as did most knowledgeable Englishmen and Scots, on the status of the posfnati.

According to Bruce Gdoway, "It was univenaiiy accepted that the Post-Nati - those

born &er March 24, 1603 - were by law naturd subjects of either kiogdorn."31 Parliament

would be asked by the Commission only to pas a law fonnally recognising the nghts of

theposmati. Gdoway has suggested that there was little resistance among the English

Commissioners to the naturalisation of theposfnati because by the thethey had matureci,

a new Angiicised king would probably be on the thr~ne.~~Such a monarc4 raised in

England, would be Less likeiy to show any special favour to the Scots. While the issue of

the postnafi brought a quick consensus, debate on the status of the antenari remained

protracted.

English Cornmissioners spent a good deal of tune oEeriog objections to the general naturalisation of the mtenati and debates on the issue exacerbated tensions between the

English and Scottish delegates. Through the advancernent of arguments similar to those put forward by Savile, the Commission came to redise the extent of the English resentment of Scottish privileges in France. Scots were believed to be exempt nom many of the nistoms tbat Enghsh merchants were obliged to pay and a fear existai that the

Scots would dominate trade with France after the union had been effected." The pdeges of the Scots in France were not as great, however, as Engiishmen bad supposed.

Scottish representatives pointed out that the "ALiens Custom" fkom which Scottish

3' Bmce Galloway, The Union of England und Scotland. I603-Z608 (Edinbwgh: John Donald, 1986), 71. 32 ~bid.,71. 33 Ibid., 70. merchants were exempt applied only to Nomiandy. In the rest of France, especially in the wine centre of Bordeaux, trade distinctions were

Further controversy deveioped when the current legal status of the Scottish mtenatz in England was broached. When Bacon repeated the clai.made in his earlier letter to James that the Scots were now automatidy denizens, a status normally awarded only to aliens through the issuance of letters patent, most of the English delegates disagreed. nie rnajority of Commissioners refused to recognise a generai denizenation of the antend and instead insisted that they were still alien~.~'The English delegates approached the issues of both denizenation and naturalisation with a great deal of circumspection and trepidation, insisting that a matter of nich grave significance had to be carefiilly considered before a decision could be rendered.

The "Discourse ofNaturalisation," written by an unidentified member of the

Commission, elaborated on objections discussed earlier by Spekand articulated many of the English fears and suspicions. The discourse argued in favour of continuhg the policy of individual naturalisations through the use of the royal prerogative: "it is farr better to open a Wkket by the which they may be let in one by one, then to open the greate Gate without restraint."" Reluctance to concede a general naturalisation, however, did not lead to an outnght refùsal. The English representatives asserted that they could be persuaded to accept the naturalisation of the mtenati, but only if certain reservations were imposed, especidy a ban on office holding." Not surprisingly, the Scottish delegates took &ont at such forma1 limitations on their privileges. They objecteci to being unfcrirly characterised as greedy, grasping, and unequa and insisted that they should be considered as naturd as their king. The Scots were also quick to point out that the imposition of any limitations on naturalisation would kEneon the royal prerogative.38

This brought the issue to an impasse, so the Scots appeded to the King to intervene. James responded with a letter to the Earl of Salisbury, in which he attempted to assuage fears over naturalisation and defend his own actions at court:

1 protest in goddis presence never Skottisheman did ather directlie or indirectlie make sute to me for any such præferrement as is reserved in your acte.. . I was ever rootid in that firme resolution never to have Skottisheman in any suche room till fkst tyme hadde begun to weare awaye that opinion of different nations, & secondlie that this jealous aprehension of of [sic] the union hadde bene wome awaye, & thirdtie that Skottishemen had bene brocht up here at the feet of gamaliell."39

The third point revealed his desire for long-term integration which would be realised in subsequent generations ofpo~fnati.James hoped that young Scottish aristocrats would be raised at court where they could be indoctrinated into his British vision. %ythe tirne that the next generation had matured, national distinctions would be blurred and made irrelevant. Until that time he insisted that: "1 wolde ever all my lyfe praeferre an English man to a Scotfishe man.. . [and] wolde ever wishe my successouris derme to do the lyke.77mHe was astute enough to recognise the validity of the Englisb grievances in the short-term, but insisted that restrictions take the fom of an expression of royal intent not binding his prerogative. Simply put, he would promise not to gant fûrther offices to

Scots in England, but reserved the right to make exceptions. Although wiUing to make concessions to Engliçh demands, James steadfastly refused to permit his prerogative to be

37 Ibid., 72. 38 Ibid., 72. " HMC. Third Report, 11. impugned in any way. So that the Scots could Save face, he also msisted that any formal ban on offices take the fom of a mutual exclusion and not target Scots ~~ecificall~.~'

Wdh a royal promise of moderation secureci, the Commission was hally prepared to recommend a general naturalisation. On 24 November 1604, the Comnrissioners for the Union agreed to recommend to their respective parliaments an enabiing act for the naturalisation of the mtrenati." Galloway has argued that neither side was happy with the compromise and that both sides felt as though the other had won the day. The Scots had lost potential ofnces in England while the Engtish became obliged to accept an unwanted generai Scottish naturalisation." It was a compromise victory for the cause of national union, but James must have been pleased. On 6 December 1604, the last &y of the

Commission, delegates £kom both kingdoms signed the Instniment of Union, fonnalising their recommendations." It only rernained now for the Instrument to be ratified in each respective kingdom. James and his unionist supporters soon discovered, however, that that would be no easy task.

When the English Parliament resumed in November 1606, the Instrument of Union was presented to both houses. On 27 November, the two Houses agreed to a division of the contents, with the Lords examinuig the issues of nahiralisation and border laws and the

Commons commerce and the hostile laws." Discussion in the Commons began inauspiciously. Ncholas Fuller opened the debate by pointing to negative aspects of the naturalisation articles:

Ibid. 41 Galloway, The Union afEngland and Scotiand, 72-73. 42 Spedding, ed., The Worhof Francis Bacan, X ,241. 43 GaUoway, The Union of Enghnnd and ScotZmtd, 73. Ibid., 6245. Ewe bring in Noblemen, see how many must be removed to give them place. Trees removed fiom hard and barren soi1 to a rich and fitfiill will flofish fast; but removed fiom good to worse doe decay and wither, therefore they doubtlesse will Thrive here; as we doubtless shall wast there. Therefore 1could wish everyone to remain in that place, to which Nature hath made his Me proper.G

Fuller was not merely rehashing the feus of a Scottish deluge which had been articulated

earlier, he also pointed out that the unequai nature of a muhial naturalisation. The Scots would gain access to the riches and benefits of England, but the Engiish would gain

nothing since Scotland had no wealth to offer. He also differed markedly nom the eariier writers by suggesting that the naturalisation of individuds was also an unsavoury proposition. By mentiorhg the nobility specifidy, he can ody have been alluding to the transplanted Scottish courtiers whom James kept about hiç person. Fuller not only

opposed naturalisation, he indirectly attacked the efforts of James to create a British court.

Between 18 December and 10 February 1607, parliament recessed for Christmas. hinng that the, members had the opportunity to mull over the implications of the

instrument. When the House of Commons reconvened in Febmary, members soon became preocaipied with "a protest against the project for making those two nations one; towards which the first step was a general nahirali~ation."~~Naturalisation was supposed to be disaissed by the Lords, but the members of the Commons held such strong opinions

on the issue that they decided to debate it anyway.

On 13 February, while the Commons was re-introducing matters contaïned in the

Instrument, the proceedings were temporarily disrupted by an outburst fkom a knight of the shire Buckingtiamshire who held partieulady strong feelings on Swttish issues.

45 Jomals of the House of Lords, Il, 454. David Hiuris Wiuson, ed. The Pczrliumentary Ditny of Robert Bowyer, 1606-1607 (Minneapolis: The UMtyof Minnesota Press, 193 l), 196. According to the Journal of the Home of Commom, wwhile members were debating merspertaining to uni04 Christopher Piggott rose to his feet and "entered into a By- matter of Invective against the Scotts and Scottish nation, using many Words of Scandai and Obloquy, il1 beseeming such an Audience, not pertinent to the Matter in han& and very unseasonable for the Theand occasion-'?a The speech was described elsewhere in the Commons records as a "bitter and scandalous Invective against the Nation of the

Scotts and Scottishmen, tending to the Dishonour of the said s ou se."^^ No one attempted to silence the vitriolie speaker, however, and his comments went ~nanswered.'~On 16

Febmary 1607, a royal messenger Ulfomed the Commons that James had been made aware of the speech and was veq displeased that firstly, no one had intemipted Piggott and that secondly, he had not been immediately disciplined. The JOU~CZZrecorded that the

Commons had been too preoccupied with other matters to respond to Piggott's speech imrnediat ely, but James found t hat excuse unacceptable. With the King' s displeasure knowq Piggoti was severely reprhnded for his actions, even though many in the House felt that this was a violation of the privilege to speak keely while in parliament. To moll.@ their sovereign and restore the honour of their House, the Commons decided to censure

Piggon by comrnitting him to the Tower indefinitely and dismissing him fiom his seat."

Perhaps because he had not committed a mily indictable offence, Piggott was charged generally, not for any specifïc word or tem. To help erase the mernory of what had transpired, the Cornmons stnick the hostile speech fiom its records and ordered it

47 Spedding, ai., TIre Worhof Francis Bacon, X ,305. 48 Journal of the House of Commons, ï, 333. 49 lbid., 336. lbid., 333. Ibid., 336. officially "put into ~blivion."~~The invective of Piggott and the example made of him,

revealed the emotional intensity of the debates. It was an unpromising way to begin the

discussion over naturalisation and exposed the tough challenges faced by those who

supported the union.

On 14 February 1607, the day after Piggott's speech, the Instrument's article

relathg to naturalisation was read before the Commons. Nichofas Fuller again opened the

debate by speaking against the article." For the most part, he repeated the same

objections that he had put forward the previous November: there was no room or place

for the Scots in England and that naturalisation would cause an influx of Scots. Over the

course of the next several days, Sir Francis Bacon endavoured to put forward a rebuttal.

Systematically refùting each of Fuller's objections, he attempted to ailay Scotophobic

suspicions, and then advanced his own arguments in favour of a general naturalisations4

One of the key advantages which Bacon saw in a mutual naturalisation was that Angio-

Scottish peace would be assured for all tune to corne and that the bonds between the two

nations would become indis~oluble.~~England's northern border would be made secure,

" Ibid., 335. 53 Spedding, ed,The Works of Francis Bacon, X, 307. " In an sort to dispel the notion that a flood of Scots was imminent, Bacon asserted that while there were "more than some persons of qualit. about his Majesty's person here at the Court, and in London, and some other Merior persons that have a dependency upn them... if such a swey should be made, wodd be of a number extremely mail." He added that the Scats were already natnral in France, yet there had never ken a great influx of Scots to that kingdom. Why would England be iiny different? Furthexmore he ctaimed that EngIand was "not yet peopled to the firll" and that in te= of population size, it was inferior to other cuntinentai temtories. See Spedding, ed., The Works of Francis Bacon, X ,307-12. 55 Ibid., 32 1. the Auld Alliance of Scotland and France would cease, and a united British redm would be much greater in the eyes of the world. It would also preclude any future individual alliance between either the England or Scotland and a foreign power.56

The strongest points Bacon tried to make in defence of naturalisation concemed both the fundamental legaiity of its application and the process through which it wodd be put into efEect. Ernphatically denying that a union of laws was a prerequisite for naturalisation, he harkened back to the ideas expressed in his earlier letters to James and he insisteci that: 'Waturalization is in order fïrst and precedent to union of laws; in degree, a iess matter than union of laws; and in nature, separable, not inseparable fiom union of laws. For Naturabation doth but take out the marks of a foreigner, but union of laws makes them entirely oursel~es."~~Mutual naturalisation, as Bacon saw it, was a crucial and essential step in the move towards a graduai integration of the two nations. A union of laws was also important, but needed to be fashioned afterwards. Bacon confessed that

"for mine own part. . . I wish the Scottish nation governed by our laws" for English laws were worthy to govem the entire world. '* For precedents of naturalisation without legal union, he pointed to the islands of Jersey, Guemsey, and the Isle of Man where subjects had the benefit of naturafisation, but were not bound by the same laws as ~nglishmen.~~

Bacon was also quick to point out that the issue at hand appiied only to the antenczti7insisting that the po~fnatiwere already de jure naturalised:

The benefit of Naturaikation is by the law, in as many as have been or shail be boni since his Majestyyscoming to the crow already settled and invested. Tnere is no more then desired but to bring the Ante-nari into the degree of the Post-PZ@,

--

56 Ibid., 323. '' Ibid., 3 14. Ibid. 59 Ibid., 3 15. that men grown, that have well deserved, may be in no worse case than children which have not deserved, and elder brothen in no worse case than younger brotherse6'

From the standpoint of faimess, one's date of birth should not make a difference in

determining one's legal status. Hence, it was unjua that a Scottish child boni the day

derJames inherited England was natural, yet a child bom the day before was not. AU

should be permitted to share the prideges of naturalisation equally.

Those opposed to naturalisation were incked to agree that all Scots should

possess the same status, but insisted that the statu should be as aliens. By lumping the

groups together, it would be easier to deprive both of any benefits of naturalisation. On

21 Febniary, unmoved by Bacon's supplications, the Commons decided that thepostnafi*

were not dejurz naturalised; the Lower House also refused to enact or recognise a

generalised naturalisation of any group of Scots without reservations est being imposed.61

On 23 Febmary, with the matter apparently settled in the Commons, a request was

sent to the Lords for a conference that would enable the Lower House to fodypresent

its recornrnendation~.~~The Lords agreed to the request, but still had yet to reach a final

decision on the issue themselves. The following day, a number of leading judges, after

rnuch deliberation., defivered their opinions to the Lords ''touching the Point of Law for the Naturalization of the Scottish." Ten of the eleven judges agreed "that such Scottzsh as

have been, or shall be, born in Scotl.,since his Majesty's coming to the Crown, are not

Aliens, but are inheritable in this Realm by the Law (as it now stands in Force), as native

Ibid. Ibid., 326. 62 The Journals of the House oflords, II, 475. ~n~lish."~~The Lords readily accepted the decision and consequently adopted the same position on the issue of thepostnati as had Bacon. Since the Lords' rulïng in the issue of the posfizai was fundamentally at odds with the Commons' expressed views, the anticipated conference promised to be a lively and controversiai one.

On 25 Febniary 1607, the Great Conference on Naturalisation, involving numerous representatives fkom both the Lords and Cornons, met in the Painted Chamber for the fkst the. The Commons began its case against naturalisation by presenting a list of objections in wbich the issue of equality figured prominently. Sir Edwin Sandys, the spokesrnan of the Cornons, argued that the naturalisation of the Scots would produce inequality since the Scottish parbarnent had not yet agreed to naturalise the Englisb If made natual, Scots would be entitled to enjoy the benefits of Enghshmen, "whereas they would be liable but to half of the burden." Naiuralisation would gant all the rights and privileges held by Englishmeri, but the Scots would not be properly subjected to English

~aw?

Scotland's relationship with France dso c'ontinued to provide another serious impediment to naturalisation. On 7 March, Sir Henry Neville questioned the wisdom of granting rights to Scots who were already naturai in another kingdom, asking: "Whither we may entertaine the Love of this Nation in Generd, before they have put [off]the Love of France, to whom they are joined? h his parliamentary diary, Robert Bowyer agreed, recording that: "It was said That a great hpediment to this Naturalization, is the French

63 The jurists oEering their opinions included the Lord Chief Justice as weii as the Lord Chief of the Common Pleas. Justice Walmisley was the single dissenting judge. See Ibid., 476. 64 Quoted in Spedding, ed., The Works of Francis Bacon, X ,328-29.See also Willson, ed. The ParfimentatyDiary of Robert Bowyer, 1606-1607,226-27. 65 Willson, e& The Parliamentary Diary of Robert Bowyer, I606-1607,226. Naturalization: And therefore thought by some that the said French Nahiraüzation is to be broken and waved, for as a Woman, so a Nation motstand in firmer Inwardness with two men, or ~ations."~The Comrnons wanted the Scots to make a choice between a relationship with England and France; they refùsed to pennit the Scots to be naturalised in aii three realrns. These members argued that the Scots loved the French more than the

English and that the Auld Alliance had to be forever broken before seeds of mutual affection coufd grow between the two nations. Not all of the members took such a stance, however, some came to the Scots' defence, asking why they should harm their Scottish dies where the English would ben& nothing? They even suggested that the French king would benefit if the Scots gave up their privileges in France, for the Scots would then be obliged to pay eustoms. Not only would this help the French and harm the Scots, but it would also hurt James, because he would probably cornpensate this loss by reducing customs elsewhere, which would adversely affect the royal treas~r~.~~

The representatives of the Cornons obstinately refused to accept a special status for thepostnatz, maintainhg that they fonned a single group with the antep~ati.~'On 7

March, Sandys expressed this position: "We are.. . to consider of the Antenati and the

Postnati in Uce degree, for we have not conceived any reason hitherto, to preferr the Post

Nati before them which served his Majesty long before, and even in his Coming hither.'y69

The Luwer House seenied only prepared to concede that: "Y& must it be granted that they are somewhat in bettw state than aliens, though not in so good as naturalized

a ibid., 220. 67 Ibid. " S pedding, ed, The Wirks of Francis Bacon, X ,328-29. " Willsog ed nte PmIiamentq Diary of Robert Bowyer, l6U06-l6O7,225. subjects."" The Lords remained unswayed by the Commons' arguments and stood smily by the decision of the judges and, on 2 March 1607, had the judges deliver their report to the conference. They reaflirrned the earlier ruling, and added that ailegiance, su fundamental to the issue of naturalisation, preceded la^.^' Histoncally, they argued, the ties of loyalty connecting subjects to their monarch came before the promulgation of laws, so the allegiance of individuais to their king was paramount and could not be hindered by mersof law. This validateci Bacon's earlier contention that a generaiised naturalisation codd precede a legal union Perhaps growing tirai of the Lower House's persistent recalcitrance over the issue, the Lords questioned the nght of the Commons ïo discuss the matter. They reminded the Commons that the Lower House did not possess powers of judicature and had no authority to rule on points of law?

By mid-March, the larger part of the Commons remained opposed to naturalisation, but they had to find new ways to countermand the judges' decision."

Focusing on financial matters, where they had the initiative, the Commons briefly attempted to make naturalisation a financial issue by drawing attention to the transport of revenue and wealth to Scotiand which was anticipated as a potential effect of nat~ralisation.~~Some rnembers of the Commons, however, bega.to argue in favour of a

'perfect union'. Led by Sir Edwin Sandys, they began to insist that EngIishmen should accept nothing short of a perfect incorporating union that would bring about a uni for mi^

'O Spedding ai., The Workr of Francis Bacon, X ,328-29.On 14 March 1607 the Commons resolved not to recognise a distinction between the an te na^ and poshrati and to deny umearicted naturalisation to both groups. The Lower House refusai tu &ect an imperfécî union. See Willson, ed. The Parlimentq Diary of Robert Bowyer, I6O6- 1607, n239. 71 Spedding, exi, The Works of Francis Bacon, X , 332. 72 ibid., 333. 73 Ibid.. 334. in laws. Since a legal union would also bring about a UNformity of obligations and privileges for all the King's subjects, naturalisation would not have to be addressed separately.

While the policy of perfect union gave its proponents the appearance of aying to work out a fair arrangement with Scotland, it should be more properly considered as a type of stalling tacti~.'~At its most basic level it indicated the Commons' refusal to accept the arguments presented by either Bacon or the Lords concerning the separability of law and allegiance. It also rejected the possibility of a British union based on graduai stages of amalgamation. Advocates of perfect union assumed an all-or-nothing posture and would accept nothing less than a total assimilation of Scotland. The imposition of

English law, unadulterateci, on Scotland was portrayed as the only acceptable form of union.76 Furthemore, the Commons insisted that the naturalisation that would corne into effect after perfect union would not be one without restrictions; both the pst and antenati of Scotland wodd be barred &om certain offices and privileges in perpetuity. The King's promise of moderation, as outlined in the Instrument of Union, was not considered

74 Willson, ed. The Parliamentary Diaty of Robert Bowyer, I606-16U7,221-23. 75 Joel J. Epstein, Bruce Galloway and Brian Levack have dl arguai that the Commons', and particularly Sir Edwin Sandys', promotion of perfii union was a tactic ahedat dehitely derailing naturalisation negotiations. See Joel J. Epstein, Francis Bacon: A Political Biography (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1977), 83 ; Galloway, The Union of England and Scotland, 1 12; and Brian P. Levack, 'Toward a More Perfêct Union: England, Scotland, and the Constitirtion," in Barbara C. Malament, ed,After the Reformation: Essqys in Honour of J. H. Hexter (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, l98O), 66. WïUard M. Wallace has suggested that Sandys' individuai opposition to both naturalisation and union was due at least partially to Scotophobic prejndices. See "Sir Edwin Sandys and the Fksî Parfiament of James I," (PhD Dissertation: University of Pennsylvania, 1940). 76 WWn,ed. The Pmliamentary Dimy of Robert Bowyer, 1606-I6WY23O-S 1. Galloway has argued that "The predominant attitude of Members towards Scots iaw would seem to be one of dismisal." See Galloway, The Union of England and Sw tlattd, 115. sufficient because it did not bind his successors to the same promise.77 'Perfect Unionists' realised that such an arrangement would be deemed untenable by the Scots, but they conceived this to be one of the greatest features of their program; when the Scots refused to accept English law and onerous restrictions on their privileges, they could be blamed by the Commons for the fidure of union.78 When it had becorne clear to the Lords th& the

Commons would not accept the naturalisation of the antenari before a legal union, the

Earl of Salisbuy promptly decided to end the conference. Nothing positive was being achieved and continued discussion of perfect union actudy had the deleterious effect of further poisoning relations between England and ~cotlmd.'~

On 3 1 Mar& 1607, James delivered a speech to parliament in which he revealed his views on the issues of naturalisation and union According to Spedding the essential purpose of the speech was to convince the Commons to pass an Act of general naturalisation as an initial step towards 'perfêct union.'80 Indeed, early in his address,

James announced that "1 desire a perfect Union of Lawes and perçons, and nich a

NaturalVluig as may make one body ofboth kingdomes under rnee your in^."^' He wanted the Commons both to agree to effect a naturalisation of the antend as outlined in the Instrument and to recognise the natwalised status of theposmafi. In an effort to reassure and inform the Commons about the true nature of naturalisation, James addressed several points of contention.

" This conflicted again with the position adopted by the Lords, who, on 7 1607, had Ranirmed that both the post and antenati should be naturalised according to the restrictions set out in the Instrument, See Wiiison, ed. The Parlimentary Diary of Ro bert Bowyer, 1606-1607,23 1. 78 Ibid., 230; and Spedding, ed-, The Works of Francis Bacon, X ,334. " Sandys' chawinisoc ideas of perfect union were very pooriy dvedin Scotland. See Galloway, The Union of England and ScotIand, I 14-19. " Spedding. d,The WurhoJFrancis Bacon, X ,342. Although, acknowledging English arucisties over the naturalisation of the mitenati,

James attempted to dismiss them as mere chimeras, especially that: "England wili then be overwhelmed by the swarming of the Scots, who if Union were effected, would raigne and nile The antenafi were smdl in number and, for the King, did not pose a threat to

England: there could be no flood of Scots. The future kings of his he, who would be raised in Westminster, would identfi more with England than Scotland. Dismisskg the

Commons' fears that Liberality to the Scots would increase &er naturalisation, he counseiled his English subjects to: "Bee not therefore abused with the flattering speeches such as would have the Antenari prefened, alleadging their merit in rny SeMce, and such other reasons which indeed are but ~o~hisms."~~Scots bom before the union wodd not be awarded more bounty than their English counterparts.

James also moved to clar* the issue of thepostnati's status. He insisted that the judges' position on theposmari had to be accepted and that he possessed an unfettered prerogative right to naturalise aliens. In cases where the law was unclear, he wamed that he would decide in bis capacity as the !ex loquem." Reminding parliament of hjs arbitrary powers, he rhetorically asked: "What kinde of prerogative will you make? But for the Posi nuti, your owne Lawyers and Judges at my Est coming to this Crowne, informeci me, there was a merence between the Ante and the Post nati of each kingdome, which caused me to publish the Proclamation, that the Post nan' were Naturalized ipso facto by my

- - 8 1 James VI and I, "Speech of 3 1 March 1607 " in Political Wkitings, lohann Sommerville, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 16 1. 82 ibid., 164. " Ibid.. 168. Some of this fear may have been inadvertently fostered by the arguments of Bacon who, on 28 March, had suggested that more privileges should be given to the Scottish anfenati than to the posfnati since that generation had hdyproven its loyalty to the crown See Willson, ed The Parliarnentary Diary of Robert Bowyer. 1606-1607,248- Accession to this Crowne." He then warned parliament not to dispute the judges' decision for the good of both nations. Ifthe judges were questioned then it could not but 'breed a loosenesse in the Governement, and a disgrace to the whole Nation" due to the loss of reverence for judges generally.85 Throughout the speech, a weary and fnistrated tone was evident. At one point James complained that "of Naturalization, AU you agree that they are no Aliens, and yet wiU not allow them to bee nat~rall."*~The matter of the postrzati had seemed clear for nearly four years and the Commons' intractability over the issue was obviously testing James' patience."

Given the importance of the po- in Jamesynation-building plans, the emphasis which he placed on their naturalisation was unsurprising. This was to be one of the most crucial points in lames' desired long-term national integration; as the pustmti rnatured they would provide the bais for a permanent Anglo-Scottish rnerger:

the Pest nati are more to bee respected: For if you would have a perfect and perpetuall Union, that carmot be in the Anti nati, who are but few in cornparison with those that shall be in all ages succeedihg, and cannot live long. But in the Pust nati shall the Union be continued and live ever aage deraage, which wanting merence cannot but leave a perpehiall marke of separation in the worke of the Union: as also that argument of jealousie wïil be so fane removed in the case of the Post nati which are to reape the benefit in all succeeding aages?

The Commons' mernbers were neither deafnor foolish; they did not wish to displease or de@ the King, but they could not overcome their Scotophobic prejudices. Despite the

- -- " James VI and I, 'Speech of 3 1 March 1607 in Politica/ Wnrings, So~ommervîlle,eb, 171. 85 Ibid., 167. 96 ~bici. " Jenny Woddhas noted that James became so frustrateci with the Commons' 'foot-dragging' over nahualisation that he eventuaüy even threatened to move ParLiament. See 3- Wormald, 'The Creation of Britain: Multiple Kingdom or Core and Colonies?" Transactions of the Royal H'orical SocieN Sixth Series, II (London: Royal Historiai Society, 1992), 18 1. * James VI and 1, "Speech of 3 1 Màrch 1607 " in Political Wrilings, Soommwilie, ed., 168. royal lecture, the Lower House refused to pass the prescribed acteg9Many of those who opposed the naturalisation of the posf7zm-wanted to preserve the status quo for their children and, therefm, opposed ever granting this privilege to ~cots? On 30 Apd 1607, a rnonih after the King's speecb, Sir Henry Yelverton maintained that: "Toucbing the

Post Nati and the Ante, 1 think no difference, ifthe Post Nati be naturalls wee cannot restraine them, for then are they northern ~nglishmen."~'In the speech delivered to parliament on 2 May, James' anger was clearly evident. He viewed the Commons' continued insistence on an unworlcable perfect union as a sign of their bad fm both the members and the King knew that such an arrangement could not work because the Scots wouid never accept it .92

With the repeated refusa1 of the House of Commons' to accept the de jwe naturalisation of thepo~ntatz*,despite arguments fhxn the judges, the Lords, and the King,

James decided to have the matter senled in the courts. In the autumn of 1607, James, with the assistance of the Earl of Salisbury, contnved a politically motivated test case to achieve a judicial naturalisation of thepomi.93A Scottish child boni after 1603 was to be chosen around whom a legal case concerning his nghts to inherit in England would be constmcted. By October 1607, two cases were initiateci, one in Chancery and the other before the King's Bench, to ensure that the decision would leave no doubt about the

" Spedding, ed., The Worhof Francis Bacon, X , 342. " Spedding, ed,The Worh of Francis Bacon, XI, 15. 91 Willson, ed The ParIiamentary Diary of Robert Bowyer, 1606-1607,283. 9L Galloway, The Union of England and Sèotland7 1 19. * Spedding, d,The Worh of Francis Bacon, XI7 14-15 cMd7sstatus." The case would address fiindamental questions of allegiance and attempt to demonstrate that the paramount loyalty of subjects was to their King.

Argued before a group of twelve judges in the Exchequer Chamber, the case got under way in early June 1608. Knom as "Calvin's Case", it centred around the rights of the three-year-old Robert Colville, grandson of the Scottish Lord Colviue of Cuiross, who had been granted estates in England which were then forcibly seized by an Englishan.

When Colville's guardians presented a plea for the return ofthe lands, their case hged on the child's legal status in England. Ifjudged an alien, he would not be able to enter a plea and the case would be l~st.~'Sir Francis Bacon led the team presenting the case on behalf of Colville, while the lawyers for the defence included such prominent opponents of naturalisation as Sir Edwin Sandys. The arguments presented to the court, not unexpectedly, merely covered the old grounds previously debated in parliament. Sandys insisted that allegiance was owed to a place rather than an individual and that the immemoriai English law was the focus of loyalty. Bacon argued that Edward 1had been the first red law giver in England and that his living successor remained the fout of the law. Ifloyahy were owed to the law, the King would still benefit as the very source fkom which the laws originated?

The judges had afready preseated their views on the status of thepostnati on several occasions, so their decision in the case would have surprised few. Ten decided that, with respect to his privileges and fieedoms, Colville was both Scottish and ~n~lish.~~

94 Galloway, The Union of England and Scotland, 148. 95 Ibid., 148-49; and Spedding, ed, The Works of Fmcis Bm,Xl, 15. % Claire McEachern, The Poetics o/English Nationhaod, 1590-1612 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 150-51. 97 Spedduig, ed., The Works of Francis Bacon, XI, 15. When some anti-unionists charged that the case had been rigged, Sir Edward Coke, took such accusations as a personal affront and flatly denied any royal interferen~e.~'Arguing that ailegiance was due to the person of the King and not to either the law or the body politic, the judges ruled that since aliens were those who held allegiances to foreign kings, the posfr~~could not in any way be considered aliens. This decision did not directly affect the antemti who were at one the aliens and codd have even been enemies of the

English monarch before James inherited the southem kir~~dorn.~~Although parliament had failed to codbm the rights of thepu~fnati,the decision of the court ensured that natives of both Scotfand and England boni derJames ascension to the English throne would enjoy equal privileges in both kingdoms.

With their failme to thwart the naturalisation of thep~sf~,critical members of the Commons began to take steps to ensure that naturalised Scots would not share in the political privileges enjoyed by native English subjects. On 1 April 16 10, the Venetian arnbassador wrote that: "To deprive of all power those naturalized by grace they have quite recently resolved that a Fleming so mturahed and returned as a member for a county must be excluded fkom parliament, where he had sat more than once."lw This resolution, however, was anticlimactic. Once the courts had established the status of the

Galloway, The Union of England and Scotland, 149. 99 Ibid., 151; Brian P. Lafack, me Formation of the British State: England, Scotland, and the Union, 1603-1707 (O~ord:Clarendon Press, 1987), 182-184; Harvey Wheeler; "Calvin's Case (1608) and the Mcilwain-Schiryler Debate," American Historical Review 61 (1956), 59 1; and Wormald, meCreaîion of Britain," 181. 100 Calendur of Stute Papers, Venetian,XI, 55 1. Jemy Woddhas argued that "ail that naturalisation really amounted to was a few individuais claiming it, and king catefiilly excluded hmparliament when they got it." See Wonnaid, "The Creation ofBritain," II, 18 1. This is somewhat of an averstatement. While it may have been tme for the Lower House, it was certainly not tme of the Enghsh House of Lords. Several naturalised Scots who received English titles, includiag the Eark of Cariisle and Cambridge and the Duke of Richmond, had their names entered into the roUs and aîtended sessions. Sec The Journal of the House of Lords, II. postrzaii in 1608, interest in the issue of perfixt union quickly faded. There was little push nom Scotiand for further alterations and the King began to encounter more pressing difECUIties, especially with respect to his finao~es.'~'Without the King, the chief advocate of union, providing an impetus, discussion of fùrther legal or political union came to a halt.

With the distinctions between theposfnati of England and Scotland blurred, a gradual assimilation began to take place at the national ievel. In Apd 1610, the Venetian

Ambassador wrote that:

There is no talk of the Union, ody some ten Scotch gentlemen have been naturaiized; and as there is discovered great diffculty in the way ofthis Union they intend to leave the matter to ripen by the and to become fdarby the intemiarriage of the two races, by a graduat nahualization through graces, and by the doctrine that all children bom derthe King's ascension to the throne are ipso facto admissable to the privelages of both kingdoms. On this subject, the King consulted the Dcctors in Common Law, who, all Save one, favoured his Majesty's design. 'O2

The Ambassador rniscounted the number of mhiralised Scots, but his message was clear: the naturalisation of inaviduals had not proceeded on a grand scale and was limited pharily to the court. He shrewdly identified the King's plan for a gradual and long-tenn national integration and drew attention to the scheme for furthering national union through Anglo-Scottish rnarriages. The fact that the ambassador Lived at court and described the immediate world around him was significant. The forms of union which the

King could most directly idluence involved those to whom he had the most access: the aristocracy. The efforts of James VI and 1to achieve a recognition of the naturalisation of theposmati certainly had wide-ranghg repercussions that affkcted his subjects of every social strahun, but the fervour of his personal efforts to promote an Anglo-Scottish or

101 GaUoway, me Union oJEngImd und Scothd, 150. lm CaIendar of State Papers, Venetian, XI, 45 1. British aristocracy through individual naturalisations and intermarriage reveal that his primary interest lay with that particular social group.

The issue of naturalisation, as Calvin's Case demonstrated, was primarily about allegiance to the King: political and legal union were not required to achieve this crucial step in the union of the two nations. Durùig the first five years of James' reign in England, the King, his servants, and the English Parliament laboured to redefhe the relationship between the two kingdoms. The King and many members of parliament had very different visions of what a British monarchy should involve and the attempts of ali parties to persuade each other generated a good deal of controversy. James hoped that a mutual naturalisation of his Scottish and English subjects would lay the fondation for a more permanent national merger. With the abolition of legal restrictions, intercourse between his northern and southem subjects would increase, national distinctions would blur, and a new relationship founded on love and respect would develop. The rnajorïty of members in the English Commons wanted little to do with James' nation-building scheme, however, and resisted his efforts at almost every tum. They wished to preserve England as a separate monarchy with its own law and institutions. Scotophobia and material interests led members to oppose the naturalisation ofboth the post and mtenari. Furthemore, disputes between the King and the Commons over naturalisation helped to factiondise the

English polity. Despite the unease express4 by the Commons, the King was able to continue his pians of creaîing a British court aristocracy through the naturalisation of many individual Scots and through the judgement on thepo-. This and the promotion of Anglo-Scottish aristocratie dageshelped James to create at least a semblance of

British union in fiis visible world. 'Tweene Scots and Engiish: who can wonder thed if he that mames kingdomes, mames men?": Anglo-Scottish Marriage and British National Integratian, 1604-08

The third stage in James' plans to forge a single British nation involved the arnalgamation of the aristocracy through ties of blood and hship. Key to this policy was the orchestration of Anglo-Scottish marriages at court. While in some respects the integration wrought by marital unions wodd be long-tem and permanently realised in

Anglo-Scottish, postnati offspring, marriages also helped to create ties in the immediate term by establishing supranational kinship bonds among rnemben of the antenati. This chapter wili examine the matrimonial politics of James VI and 1 and the various ways in which marriage was used to advance the cause of Anglo-Scottish union.

The wedding and mamage of James Lord Hay provide a particularly rich example of the King James' matrimonial machinations. When Lord Hay wedded the daughter of

Edward Lord Demy in 1607, not only were a Scotsman and Englishwoman joined in maniage, but a symbolic joining ofthe Scottish and English arîstocracy also ocairred.

The pairing was part of a larger trend of royally-sponsored Anglo-Scottish marriages which James viewed as integral to the success of his plans for Anglo-Scottish national union. Pragmatically, James understood the benefits of binding the people of England and

Scotland together in bonds of kinship and mamage, but he also realised the utility of matrimonial imzgery in his own pro-union propaganda efforts. In concrete terms, his aristocrats were to be united by marrïage alliances; in metaphoric terms, the King was spkittiaiiy and symbolically wedded to his two realms. When James propounded his views on the union of England and Scotland,

matrimonial imagexy formed a central feature of his discourses. In his first speech to the

English Parliament in March 1604, James VI and 1spoke earnestly about his desire for a

complete and perfect union between the two nations. Just as providence had made him

king of two realms, God had ordained the union of the two kingdoms under his leadership.

He saw the relationship between sovereign and realm as comparable to the sacred

relationship between a man and de. Stating that 'khat God hath conjoined.. . let no man

separate",' he drew clear pardels between both the divine nature of the m-ge

sacrament and the union of a king with his kingdom. Esascension to the English throne

on Elizabeth's death marked the royal betrothal and his coronation the wedding.

Appealing to the reason and sensibilities of his subjects, James exhorted Parliament to

recognise that like any other Christian marriage, a husband can possess only one wife: "1

am the husband, and all the whole Island is my lawful de... 1 hope therefore that no man

will be so measonable as to think that I, that am a Christian Kuig under the Gospel,

should be a polygarnist and husband to two ~ives."~In James' mid, becoming the king

of England also meant becurning king of Bntain. According to this matrimonial logic,

England and Scotland had no option but to unite to permit the King to remain godly and

monogamous.

These matrunonial conceptions of union also appeared in his literary works. In the

poem, ErzgImd's Wedding Gment, penned anonymously by the King in 1603,' an

- pp

l Quoted in The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland. Vol. W.A.D. 1599-1601. David Masson, ed. (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1884), 605. A tmwript of this speech was subsequently sent to Edinburgh and published. Quoted in Ibid., 605. 3 King James' authorship was confirmed in WiA Jackson, eé,Records of the Court of the Stationers ' Company, 1602 to 1640 (London: The Bibliographical Society, 1% 7), 552. idealised vision of a united island wedded to a royal husband was reveded again. James fist messed continuity with the English Tudor dynasty by dudhg to its union of the houses of Lancaster and York:

The Red Rose and the White doe now, (Iine 57) And still we hope shail flourish long, And rare exploits of Helvies race, for ever grace Our Britain song.'

Just as Henry W, by marrying Elizabeth of York, had united w-g daims to the

English throne, so James now embodied the junction of England and Scotland under an imperid British crown. By encouraging union, James followed the tradition established by his Tudor forebearer.

Reassuring his English subjects that their kingdom would continue to prosper and thrive, James expressed an optinristic hope th& they would soon abandon all apprehension over union and fiatemally embrace the Scots in a new realm founded on mutual love.

Former enmities would be forgotten and dl of Britain would join together in cornmon bonds of loyalty to a single authority:

The English, Scots, and Znsh tme, (line 61) of three are now combined in one, Their hartes a tnie !ove knot fast knit, AU fonner malice now is gone.

As visage and the prose of toung, Twixî Scots and English neere agree, So guider of all hartes, their hartes Conjoyne, that loyall they may bee.

4 James 1, King of England, England's Wedding Gannent, or a preparation to King James his Royall Coronaiion (London: Thomas Pavier, 1603), 4. Ibid. James optimisticaüy hoped that the bonds of language wodd help the Scots and English to redise their similarities, follow their hearts, and willingly unite. This emotional appeal to union contrasted starkly with his later logical appeals to the English Parliament.

Finally, James appealed to his English subjects to stop lamenthg Elizabeth's death and to rejoice in the bageof the land to a new hg. England would not remain a widow for long, but would soon celebrate a new corointion day:

Cast of your Sable moumùig weedes, (line 18 1) Cease sorrow, sighes, and sobs away, Adome your selves with colours brave, For this is Englands bridaIl day.6

James recognised that his subjects grieved the loss of their Queen, but reminded them that they had a positive fùtue to anticipate. England had received a new husband - one who brought with him a kingdom-

Not only did James see marriage as a metaphoncal and rhetoricd tool in his promotion of union, it also became a practical means of easing divisions within his court.

He sought unity and consensus by working to put an end to Elizabethan divisions and by integrating Scots into the court at Westminster, taking pallis to orchestrate weddings between members of various fdy-based factions. PerceiWig the political value of mamage alliances, he encouraged the joining of Frances Howard to the Earl of Essex in

1606 "as a way of reconciling the factions that had divided the court of Elizabeth in the

1590s... It was James's fdarploy, ofken used in ~cotland."' Elizabeth had set an

English precedent of royal interference in court marriages by discouraghg members of her entourage f?om partaking in such unions, but James actively endeavoured to reverse her prohibitory marriage policies. While the late queen had wanted to make her court the centre of aristocratic ahvity and feared that m&ed courtiers might wish to leave London if they had fdydistractions in the country, James encouraged the marriage of Scottish courtiers to Engiish women to help to keep the Scots south of the border.' James actively worked to include both the Scots and English in a new network of fdyalliances. By binduig the English and Scottish aristocraties together through ties of rnarriage and bhip, a bl-g of national bomdaries would surely result.

Just as marriages at court had helped to ease Elizabethan factional tensions, James hoped that intermarnage between the Scots and English at court would help to ease national tensions. In the first decade of his reign, James encouraged many political weddings in an effort to strengthen ties and encourage CO-operationbetween the two

British aristocraties. Just as the King wdd not be the husband to two wives, he could not properly nile over two separate peoples. By promoting intennarriage, he hoped eventudy to create a single British aristocracy. By unithg Scottish and English aristocratic fanriles, old prejudices founded on ignorance and misunderstanding could give way to a new frated spirit. Scots would no longer be viewed by the English as the

Other, but as part of a iarger British national family headed by the King.

Several contemporary vmiters on union agreed that intermarriage would provide an essential foundation for a British nation. Writing in 1604, the anonymous author of A treatise abau? the Union of EngMand Scotimd suggested that: "a muigeling of the nobilitie of both nations by reciproque mariagesy'would lead to the development of mutual

7 Maunce Lee, Jr., Great Britain S Solomon: James Vi and 1in His Three Kingdoms (Chicago: University of llhois Press, 1990), 154. love and the dissolution of former di~isions.~Sir John Doddridge, in A brief consideracion of the Unyon of twoe Kingdomes, sidarly pointed to the potential efficacy of marriage as

a tool for the knitting together of the two nations in a union of love, wrïting that:

communytie in maniage, whereby is ingendered betwene the parties in present love and good likinge, and in fùture betwene their posterity a cornmixture of bloud, whereof sundrie alliances have theire of springe and originall, whose spreadinge afterwardes into many branches doe drawe the knott this unyon as dose as the same maie be knitt by an anne of fleshe, for so is this comunytie sometimes cded. 'O

He asserted that a long-tenn cornmixture of blood would gradually blur Anglo-Scottish distinctions and replace them with an enduring alliance founded upon bonds of kinship.

Afterall, an English historical precedent existed for such a national incorporation - in

Norman intemariage with the daughters of the Saxon elite."

Matrimonial unions between Scottish courtiers and the daughters of English noble families provided a particuiar focus for James' policy of national integration. In addition, these mamages helped to anchor Scots at court and the dowries often provided the bridegrooms with revenue-producing English estates. By helping to orchestrate such unions, James was able to reward Scoaish courtiers without spending much fiom his own coffers. The fist wedding involving a Scottish courtier occurred in 1603 between Sir

John Kennedy and the daughter of Lord Chandos. Displaying some of the eagemess with which Scots rushed to find Engiish brides, Kennedy 'forgot' that already had a wife in

Scotland. According to Lawrence Stone, Kennedy quickly went through ail of his new

8 David Lindley, Thomas Campion (Leiden: E. J. Brill, f 986), 187-88; Lawrence Stone, The Crisis ofthe Arisrocmcy, 1558-1641 (Oxford: Ckndon Press, L965), 605-06. A trealise about the Union of England und Scotland in hceR Galloway and Brian P. Levack eds. 23~Jacobean Union: Six TWS of1604 (Edinburgh: Scortish History Society, l985), 61. IO Sir John Doddridge, A brief consideracion of the Unyon of twoe kingdomes in Galloway and Levack, eds., The Jaoobean Union, 149. de's assets to feed his prodigal appetites and, when the dominate woman had nothing

lefi to offer, drove her "halfnaked uito the night."'* This was uncharacteristic, however,

most of these marriages tended to have more mutually satisfactory outcumes. The more

successful matches included that of Esme Stuart, Lord D' Aubigny to the daughter of Sir

Gervase CLifto~~,'~that of Sir Thomas Erskine with the sister of the future Earl of

Kingston, and that of Lord Sanquhar with the daughter of Sir George Fermer of ast ton. l4

It took a particular type of coder to engage in such cross-border unions. Keith

Brown has suggested that the Scottish members of the Privy Chamber and Bedchamber

were the most apt to seek English marriages with enthusiasm. The provincial arktocracy

of Scotland concemed itself more with parochiai interests, preferring to marry within their

own comm~nities.~~Ifwe accept that the court was the centre of James' world, then the

policy of surrounding himself with Scottish courtiers with English brides made hun feel as

though the vision of unity was being realised. For the court to reflect a tme irnperial union

of aristocraties, however, En@ courtiers would have had to seek Scottish brides.

Mamages between English lords and Scottish ladies occurred with markedly less

fiequency. For severai reasons, they appeared less attractive than their English

counterparts. Negative images of SCO ttis h ladies predorninated. Sir Anthony Weldon,

" Ibid., 150. l2 Stone, Crisîs of the Arisîocracy, 626. " Esrné Stuart was the brother of the Duke of Lenoox and a distant relative of the King. See John Nichols, d,Progresses, Processions, and Magntjkent Festivities of King Jmes the First, His Royal Consort Family and Court, II (New York: Bwt Fraaklin, 1SB), 186. l4 Sir Thomas Erskïne, a kinsman of the Earl of Mar, had been one of James' cornpanions hm childhood He was made a Gentleman of the Bedchamber in 1585; see Nichols, ed., Progresses, Processions, and MagnxJîcent Festivities of King James the First, His Royal Consort Fmily and Court, 1, 270-71. For a more complete iist of Bedcbamber and Pnvy Chamber Scots who marrieci English wives see Keith Brown, "The Scottish Aristocracy, Anglicization and the Court, 1603-38," The Historical Journal, 36 (1993), 569,571. I5 Brown, The Scottish Arisîocracy, AnAnglicization and the Court." who held minor offices in the royal househoid until being dismissed in 1617,'~wrote

venomously of female Scots in A Perfect Description of the People and Cotrnzjy of

Pride is a thing bred in their bones, and their flesh naturally abhors cleanliness; their breath cornmonly stinks of Pottage, their linen of Piss, their hands of Pigs turds, their body of sweat .. . To be chained in marriage to one of them, were to be tyed to a dead carkass, and cast into a stinking ditch; for [modesty] and a dainty face are things they drûam not ofL7

While Weldon's prejudice may not have reflected widely held perceptions, it did represent the negative attitude possessed by some of his contemporaries. When faced with the prospect of a Scottish bride, some young English aristocrats resisted. The son of Lord

Cavendish, when paired with the daughter of the Scottish Privy Councillor Lord Bruce, consented to the rnarriage only after being coerced by his father.18 Many English families may have avoided matching their sons to Scottish brides because of nativist sentiments, but it is just as probable that poorer Scottish families had less to offer in the way of dowries. The more duent of the Swtiish lords certainly had little trouble mxrying their daughters into Enghsh families. In 1604, the Earl of Moray's daughter &ed James'

English Lord Chamberlais the elderly Earl of ~ottingha~n.'~The daughter of the Earl of

Dunbar similarly married Theophilus Howard, Lord Waldeq who was the eldest son of the Earl of ~uffolk.~~These cases ought to be regarded as exceptions, however, to the

16 S. Lee, ed, Dictionary of National Biography, XX, 1073. l7 Sir Anthony Weldon, A Perject Description ofthe People md Country of Scotland (London: Rich Lownds, 1659), 19. l8 Stonc, Crisis ofthe Aristocracy, 626. l9 Stone, Crisis of the Arisiocracy, 626. Nichols, ed., Progresses. Processions. andMagniJcent Festivities ofKing Jmthe Firsi, 4 5; Sir Anîhony Weidon, The Court of King Jmes i%ereunto is now added the Court of King Charles: Continued Unto the Beginning of these Unhappy Times (London: RI., 1651), 54. general trend; Anglo-S cottish mamages involving Scottish bridegrooms were much more cornmon.

Su James Hay was another Scottish courtier who took an English wife, but his rnarriage was an exceptional one which ments special attention. W~ththe precedent of many other Anglo-Scottish marriages early in the reign of James VI and I, it would be easy at fkst to overlook the signincance of Hay's dageto the daughter of a recently ennobled English gentleman. Hay was not just another Scottish courtier who had ridden to London on his 'lean horse' in hopes of prefment; according to the Venetian

Ambassador in France, he was a "prime favourite."*' lames had taken a hgto Hay shortly before he began his leisurely progress southward to London in 1603. The young

Hay probably came to James' attention when he was part of the French ambassador's entourage in Edinburgh. Hay had met the ambassador while touring in France and accompanied him back to Scotland in 1603. Hay's French patron soon introduced him to the Scottish court and he rapidly ascended in the royal favour. According to Clarendon,

Hay's courtly bearing helped his ascent. The King viewed the youthful Scot as "a person well qualified by his breeding in France and by study in human le-g Y, . 22 Unlike some of the other dandies who later found favour with lames, Hay was not just a handsome face; he possessed intellect, wit, and an even temper. He so impressed the King with his wisdom, grace and tact, that he was soon knighted and made a permanent fixture at

" He was describeci as such on 30 March 1604. See Calendur of State Popers, Venetim, X, 140. " Edward Hyde, Earl of Chendon, The Kisfory of lhe Rebellion and Civil Wmin England (Odord: Clarendon Press, L 826), 1, 108. When the King rode south in March 1603, Sir James Hay was part of his

entourage.

A graceful, leamed courtier, Hay was to serve in England as a cultural mediator,

an example of Scottish civility whorn English courtiers could admire and emulate. James

was well aware of the anti-Scottish slanders which circulated around his court in the first

decade ofhis reign and he made significant efforts to rehabiiitate the Scots' image. Hay

was to demonstrate to the English the proper norms of generosity and hospitatity, "'the

decay whereof King James observed [as] the defect of the Englsh Nobiiitr, and the

restauration on it, he designed the honour of the Scots ~entry".~~Through this education,

James hoped that the English aristocracy would becorne more favourably dqosed toward

the Scots and, consequentiy, more likely to view Anglo-Scottish union positivety. Hay

cm be viewed as a public relations representative for the Scomsh nation. With the King

as his patron, he was aliowed a very large expense account to carry out this task.

Not the only Scot to serve the King in this capacity, Hay was perhaps the best

suited. The Venetian Ambassador suggested thaî Sir George Hume, the Earl of Dunbar,

served in a similar capacity. On 4 Iune 1608 he wrote that the:

extraordinary favour shown to the Earl of Dunbar is not taken in good part by the English, who ascnbe it to a desire to advance the Scotch and to show that they are no whit infenor to the English That is not far f?om the tmth and the King manages the matter in prudent fashion, for he hows that nothing cm more contribute to the Union than the idea and demonstration of an equaiity of rank between the two nations.

23 S. Lee, ed-, Dictionary of National Biography, K, 265. '' David Lloyd, "Observations on the Lile of James &y, Earl of Carlisle" in Stote- Worthies: or States- Men And Favourites of England Since the Reformation (London:Peter Parker, 1679), 774. 2s Calendar optate Papers, Venetian,XI, 137. Whiie Dunbar was a capable and well-respected administrator, Hay had two addmonal features that rnade him even more suited to the task of cultural mediator: he was young and single. Hay was an eligible bachelor whom the King codd use in his matrimonial machinations, but Dunbar already had a fdy. Furthemore, whereas Dunbar was probably in his mid-forties when James entered England, Hay was in his early menties; the latter's relative youth and lack of station rnade him more malleable to the King's plans.26

The youthfùi Hay was also more suited to the Life of a young reveller and host of banquets, for which he Iater became fa mou^.^'

In his early career as a courtier, Hay was very well provided for by his royal master. In his est year in England, he was appointed to the King's Bedchamber and shared a gant for the transport of cloths with Sir Philip Herbert worth a total of more than £10,000.~~Hay spared litîle expense in his lavish entertainments and often ran up exorbitant debts. If he were to set an example, he had to obtain a constant source of funds fkom the King. In 1606, James agreed to settle Hay's debts, but not without cost: parliament began to express reluctance to grant the King supply fearing it would merely be dispensed to Hay and other needy ~cots.While Hay' s pockets may have appeared bottomless to his coritemporaries, it took more than money to acquire status and respectabiiity at the Jacobean court. The acquisition of titles and English My

" Their approxîmate ages can be detennined fiom their respective biographies. See S. Lee, ed, Dictionary of National Biogruphy, K, 265-267, 1124-26. " &y became notorious for his ante-suppers and according to Linda Leiy Peck, 'kcame the symbol of the e.vtravagance of the age." See Linda Levy Peck, Court Patronage and Corruption in EurIy Stuari England @oston: Unwi Hyman, 1990), 177. Dudley Carleton, Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain. 1603-1624: Jacobean Letters. Maurice Lee, Jr., ed. (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1972), 44; S. Lee, ai., Dictionary of National Biography, IX.,265. 79 John Chamberlain, The Letters of John Chamberlain. Norman Egbert McClure, ed. (Philadelplùa: The American Philosophicai Society, 1939), 1,238. connections also played an integraf role. In June 1606, to further elevate his favourite's status, James made Hay an English baron with the style of Lord Eiay.)O This paved the way for the procurement of a suitably duent and well-wmected English wife.

The Enghsh bride chosen for Hay possessed both wealth and fdyconnections in abundance. The honour of manying the royal favouite feu suitably to Honora Demy, daughter of Sir Edward Denny. Even though James, probably with the assistance of the

Earl of Salisbury, played a large part in the selection, Hay could not have made a better catch. The prospective bride came fkom an established fiimily. Although the Venetian ambassador identifïed her as the granddaughter of the Earl of Salisbury, she was in fact the granddaughter of Salisbury's brother Thomas Cecil, Lord ~ur~hley.~~The mistake underlined the visible association between the Earl of Salisbury and the favourite: Hay was publicly seen to be marrying into the prestigious Cecil fa mi^.^^ A man of some substance, the bride's father held extensive lands in both Essex and Hdord and, Honora, his only child, was reputed to be &'thenchest heiress of her ti~ne''.~~Realising his daughter's value in the marriage market, Demy did not part with her easily.

Initially, Denny resisted the plan to make Hay his son-in-law; indeed, it took considerable "royal mediation" before he consent4 to the proposed union.34 Roy E.

30 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, ofthe Reign of King James, XXII, 1623-25 (Zondon: Longman, Brown, Greeg Longmans, & Roberts, 1857), 488. 31 Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, X, 665; George Edward Cokayne, The Complete Peerage of EngZand, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Vicary Gibbs, ed. (London: St. Catherine's Press, 19 l3), III, 32. " Hay md Denny retairied close ties to Salisbury until his death and were Listai among the few mouniers who attended his hed. See John Chamberlain, The Letters ofJohn Chamberlain, I, Norman Egbert McClure, ed. (Philadelphia: The American Philosophicai Society, 1939), 353-354. 33 Cokayne, The Complete Peerage, ID, 32; Roy E. Schre~dxr,The Fimt Curhle: Sir James Hay, First Earl of Carlisle as Courtier, Diplomut und Entrepreneur, 1580-1636 (Philadeiphia: The Amencan Phiiosophicai Society, 1984), 9. 34 Clarendon, The Hislory of the Rebellion, I, 108. Schreiber, Hay's ody modem biographer, has wrongly asserted that Denny held out for several years and only relented to the marriage at the end of 1606.~' The inarriage negotiations took most of 1604, but the fuial details of the marriage agreement were actually worked out by the autumn of 1604 at the latest, for in early August, Dudley

Carleton wrote fhrn court that "Sir James Hay is as good as sure to his young

The &age arrangement provideù benefits both for the father of the bride and for the prospective bridegroom. Denny agreed to assure Hay "a fair fortune in land providecl for any issue he should raise")' valued at £3000 per annum. In the event that Denny produced a male heir himself, that portion would be reduced to an estate with still substantiai revenues of £1500 per annum. For Denny's part, the King agreed to make hùn a baron and forgive a debt worth £3 000 owed to the crown. The King also promised to gant the betrothed couple lands totalling £1000 per annum in value.38 Royal lands at Strùaon

Manor, granted to Hay and Honora Demy jointly on 17 September 1604, cemented the deaL3'

There are several possible reasons for Denny's initial reluctance to permit the marriage. It may have stemmed fiom a desire to make the best possible deal. Denny certainly profited when the King elevated him to the peerage as Lord Denny on 27

October 1604." In July 1605, James also made the newly-created baron and his prospective son-in-law the joint keepers of New Lodge and ChicMord Walk in Waltham

35 Schreikr, The First Carfisle:9-10. Schre1&erTsfocus is primarily on Hay's diplornatic activities af€er 16 16 and the details of his subject's early Meare sketchy and at tirnes inaccurate. " Carleton, LhdZey Carleton to John Chamberlain, 62. 37 Chrendon, The Histoty of the Rebellion, I, 108-09. " Carleton, Dudley Carleton io John Chamberlain,62. " Cafendorof State Popers, Domestic, WU, 1603-16IO, 149. 40 S. Lee, ai., Dictionas, of National Biography, IX,265. Forest, ~ssex.'" Denny's revenues fmm Waltharn were Merextended shortly after the marriage when the King granted him 'Tee-simple of certain tenements and meadows" there.'* Another possibility for the resistance is that Demy was just a protective and caring father who wanted nothing more than to ensure that the match was in his daughter's best interests. He Iater displayed paiemal interest in the upbringing and advancement of the only chiId produced by the mamage, so it is reasonable to assume that he would have evinced similar conceni for his own da~~hter.'~It has been suggested that

Honora Dmymay have been bom in 159 1 or 1592 and her tender age may have made her father more cautious about rushing her into a mamage." Finally, Denny's eariy reluctance may have been motivated by Scotophobic prejudice. Hay was one of James' high profile Scottish coutiers and Denny may have been wary about rnarrying his daughter to a notoriously prodigal ~cot.~'The national implications of the wedding created a stir at court.

The wedding provided an opportune occasion for James and his pro-union supporters to promote their poïitical and imperial aspirations. The King had invested much in Hay as a cultural mediator and hoped that the wedduig would serve as an example to instmct the aristocracy about the imperial union he desired." In the week precdng the event, James took such an active part in the preparations that Zorzi Giustinian,

Venetian ambassador to England, complained that "the King has been so taken up with the

4 1 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, i5, 1603-16 10, 230. '"bid, 408. 43 In 1623 Demy repeatedly appealed to a seemingiy indifferent Hay to take more interest in the boy's advanment. Demy asked his son-in-iaw to intercede with the King to secure the younger James Hay's inheritaoce and have the boy knighted. See Calendar of Sate Papers, Domestic, XE, 1623-1625,649-51. " David Lin-, "Who Paid for Campion's 'Lord Hay's hbsque'?" Notes and Queries, 26 (April 1979), 145. 45 Maurice Lee, Jr. in Carieton, Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain, 63ff. wedding that I have not been able to obtain an audienceyy." The Spanish ambasador

similady recognised the political significance of the match and, on behalf of his royal master, presented the bride with a jewel worth over 6000 crowns." The marriage occurred at a particularly tense thein the parliamentary debates over union and the visual

symbolism of Angio-Scottish union embodied in the wedding would have seemed

apparent."g When the much-anticipated wedding celebration hally arrived on Twelfth

Night, 1607, however, political dusions went beyond mere visual symbolism.

Themes of Anglo-Scottish unity clearly emerged in Lord Hay's wedding ceremony at Whitehail and the accompanying sermon. Robert W~son,the royal chaplain attached to the household of Prince Henry, was the minister chosen to perform the n~~tials.'~His sermon plainly articulated James' dreams for national unit.. Much of the sermon

constructed an elaborate metaphor which portrayed the bride as a sailing vesse1 and the

husband as a merchant who guided the path of the ship over the ocean of Me. This reflected the King's earlier discourse on bis own mamage to the kingdorn. The portrayal

of the kingdom as a ship captained by the monarch had a special si&cance when the

ship in question represented not one kingdorn but t~o.~'

The congregation did not need to speculate on the national applications of the

" Lindley, "Who Paid for Campion's 'Lord Hay's Masque'?" 144. " Calendur oJState Popers. Venetian, X, 1603-1607,456. Ibid., 665. 49 On 24 November 1606, the Lords named 52 peers to sit on a commitîee which would disçuss the issue union with the Lower HOM. The conmittee expertdeci a substantiai amount of time debaîing the issue of a generai naturalisation of Scots und Parliament was prurogued on 4 Jdy 1607. See The Journal of the House of Lords, il, 152-539. Nichoh, ed., Progresses. Processions, and ~biagnijicentFestivities of King James the First, II, 103. RObert Willanson, The Merdiont Royall: A Sermon Preached ut White-Hull bej5r-e the Kings Majestie* ut the Nuptials ofthe Right Honourable the Loïd H' and his Lady, upon the Twelfe day fast being January, 6, 1607 (London: Felix Kingston, 1607). metaphors. W'rlkinson cleariy spelled them out; Bntain was James' bride or ship. To all of his people the King was: "indeede a royall Merchant, not only for the union of holy mariage, which yokes & couples one sex with another, but as Merchants doe by intercourse of trafiique, for knitting and combining one kingdome with an~thel'.'~

This aristocratie maniage, therefore, became a symbol of a more perfect union between

England and Scotland. Echoing James' own statements about the divine nature ofhis royal mifjhg mission, WiIkinson then argued that :

I will not Say it is kingly, but divine and heavenly to unite into one things of divided nature: for thus did God create the worid, nrst he made things, and then hee matched them; first he created, and then he coupled them; of man and woman he made one in mariage, of body and soule he made one man, of sea and land hee made one earth, of heaven and earth he made one world; but then the diveil upon the stage, and his part againe was to divide what God had united. . . then distracted & tome into divers kingdomes of JU&h, and the kingdome of Israel; therefore doubtlesse a glorious work it were of Judah and IivaeZ againe to make one kingdome.s3

Division was the devil's work, but God desired to see a proper wity and harmony among his English and Scottish children. James was a divinely appointed agent destined to bring about this British union:

it be gracious in Gods eies to do right and justice to a stranger, how much more to love a stranger, but most of al1 to take away the name of a stranger . . . thrice blessed and happie be your Majesties endevour therei~~.'~

The English and Scots must abandon their old national identifications and cease to be strangers; they must love each other as one people, as God willed. The wedding sermon provided an opportunity for the preacher to expound a social and political view of union which took on a decidedly religious bent.

5' ~bid.,33. 53 Ibid., 33-34. 54 Ibid., 34. The festivities which followed the nuptiafs continued to convey sllnilar political and national messages. The highlight of the TweW Night revelling was the celebration of

Thomas Campion's spectacular union-centred wedding masque. Played out in the Great

Hall at Whitehall, the production captured bnefly the attention of the entire court.55 The

King, whose chair of state stood at the focal point of the set's design, watched fiom his privileged vantage point, surrounded by courtiers and other honoured guests. The set itseff was rather elaborate, with a stage containing several levels shrouded by numerous layers of rich tafkta curtains. On either side stood a ta11 black piilar bedecked in golden stars, while an even farger pillar aochored the middle of the set. Between these pillas

'kere plac't on wyer artincial Battes, and ûwles, continudy rnoving". Prominent on the central stage was a green vdey and grove which included "nine golden trees of fifteene foote high, with armes and braunches very glorious to beho~d".'~Comected to each of the trees were engines designed to make them sink into the ground on cue. Unfortunately for the audience, however, a stage hand had forgotten to attach the engines before the performance began and, when the thne came, the trees fded to move." In addition to what mut have been an irnpressive visual arrangement, more than two dozen musicians and singers were on hand to provide even grander musical effects? This was Campion's

masque' and he had been selected for the job based prirnarily on his reptation as a

--

55 Thomas Campion, The Discripiion of a hfmke, Presented befoe the Kinges Majestze al White-Hall, on TweiJh Night last, in the honour of Lord Hqes, and his Bride, Daughter and Heire to the Honourable the Lord Dennye, their h.fmCIITlagehaving been the same Day ut Couri Soiernnized (London: JobWindet for John Brown, 1607), 5. The Banqueting Hall, which ordinariiy would have hosted the fdties, was mvailable due to ongoing renovations. See Walter R Davis, Thomas Campion (Boston: Twayne, 1987), 123. 56 Campion, The Discription of a hfaske, 5-7. 57 Nichols, ed., Progresses, Processions, and MagnQcent Festivities ofkTing James the First, 11, 116. 58 Campion, The Discription of a hkske, 54. musical composer.59While the masque was surely an extravagant spectacle to behold, there was a deeper substance in the visual and verbal te-: the performance evinced important mtional themes.

Lord Hay's wedding masque presented many metaphorical allusions to both

Anglo-Scottish union and court Me in generd. The fit of the allegorical themes evident in the masque related to unity and continuity. In the masque's opening song, Campion used the familiar Tudor symbol of white and red roses to reassure the audience that the old unity wodd be maintained: "Earth hath no Princelier flowers /Then Roses white, and

Roses red, But they must still be ~ning.Ied."~*The third song discussed themes of imperial union more explicitly, depicting an imperial realm founded upon peace and mutual love between its component nations:

Shewes & nightly revels, signes ofjoy and peace, Fiil royall Bntaines Court; while cruen warre fame off doth rage, forever hence exiled; Faire and prhcely branches with strong arms encrease; From that rooted tree, whose sacred strength & glory forren malice hath beguiled. Our devided kingdomes now in fiiendly kindred meet, And old debate to love & kindness tum, our power with double force uniting ; Tmly reconciled, griefe appeares at last more sweet. Both to our selves & faithfui fiendq Our undermining foes af~n~htin~.~'

The idyilic pichire of a British reatm cornposed of reconciled former enemies reflected both the end of the war in Ireland and the King's own cdsfor a new Anglo-Scottish

59 Lindley, Thomas Campion, 176; Edward Lowbury, Timothy Salter and Alison Young, Thomas Campion: Poet. Composer, Physician (London: Chatto & Windus, 1970), 192-4. 60 Campion, The Discription of a Maske, 10 Ibid, 30-3 1; Nichols notes that tbis Song was actrially written by a "Mr. Lupo," in Progresses, Processions. and Magnificent Festivities of King James the First, II, 12 1. fiaternalism. Campion also revealed some of the practical dBicdties, however, which had

to be overcome before a perfect union could corne into being.

In his degorical depiction of Scottish courtiers as liçentious Knights of Apollo,

Campion astutely identified some of the impediments to union. These Knights, who had

as thieves profaned the forest of Cynthia and fightened her nymphs, were tumed into trees as revenge for the injuries they had innicted. In this particular episode, Campion depicted the suspicion prevalent in England of an apparent monopolisation of English offices and patronage by immigrant Scots. He went on to note how "Apollos love to them doth yet appeare,/ In that his beames hath guilt [sic]them as they grow,/ To make their miserie yield the greater showyy.62 The gilding of the Knights probably hinted at the apparent favouritism shown by James towards the Scots in his entourage. The tu-g of the Knights of Apollo into trees sounded as a waming for the King to display greater temperance and more sensitivity to English needs. In his depictions of Diana and Apollo

(Elizabeth and James respectively), Campion rerninded his audience that it was "Diunus power that stucke them [the Knights of Apollo] here," and that the King would do weli to remember that Elizabeth had first made the union possible by bequeathing hUn her throne.

Eventually the Knights retumed to their human fomand, humbled, aaed as the very model of whious subjed3 Campion was allegorically suggesting to his audience that the preference given to the Scots fostered English resentment of the Scottish nation and created an obstacle to union. With the Scots better behaved and the English afEorded a position of equality withh their own kingdom, the King would find his new subjects more

------62 Campion, The Discription ofa Itfmke, 14. a Ibid., 17-18. CO-operativeand amenable to suggestions &out union.M Indeed &er the last of the

XOiights was restored to human shape, a song opened with the line: "Long live ApoIIo

Brittaines glorious eye."65 Thus, one of the themes of union reappeared in the fina scene

of the masque.

It has been suggested that the critical nature of much of Campion's symbolism

directly related to the identity of his patrons. David Lindley has argued that the men who

paid for the masque were ody lukewarm unionists and that Campion had to dethe

masque acceptable to his patrons. While pleasing the King by expounding the benefits of union, he also satisfied his patrons by revealing some of the enterprise's practical obstacles? On the basis of questionable evidence, Lindley has claimed that fiends of the bridegroom probably paid for the masque rather than the King. He suggested that these fiiends likely included the Howard Earl of Suffot and the Cecil Earls of Salisbury and

~xeter!~He has argued that in an effort to curry the King's favour, the Cecils and

Howards used Hay's wedding celebration to prornote the anticipateci Anglo-Scottish union.68 There exist no known documents linking any of these men directly to Campion, but a few pieces of Robert Cecil's personal correspondence seem to hint that he had some type of involvement in the production.69 Since the bride was Salisbury's grand-niece and

64 Martin Butler has suggested that this portion of the masque mas aIso intended to dispel English anxiety about the presence of Scots at court. See Martin Butler, "The invention of Britain and the early Stuart masque" in R Malcolm Smuts, ed., The Stuart Court and Europe: Essays in Poiitics and Political Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)' 73. 65 Ibid., 20. 66 David Lindley, "Campion's Lord Hay 's kiasque and Anglo-Scottish Union," Huntington Library Quarterly, 43 (1979), 1-1 1; Thomas Campion, 177, 67 Lindley, ornas Campion, 176; "Who Paid for Campion's 'Lord Hay's Masque'?" 244. 68 Lindley, "Who Paid for Campion's 'Lord Hay's Masque'?" 145. ''~bid., 14445. Exeter's granddaughter, the suggestion that these two nobles would fund the performance is not entirely implausible.

Evidence connecting the Howards to Campion, however, seems even more suspect. Noting tbat the published version of the masque included a dedicatory poem to the Earl of Suffolk's son Theophilus Howard, Lord Waldeq Lindley asserted that

Campion was both honouring his benefactor's son and appealing to him for more patronage in the fùt~re.'~ Campion's masque therefore "celebrates not merely a marrïage but a political gesture engineered by two of the most important familes in the realm"." If we accept Lùldley's speculations, it would mean that James may not have been directly respoosible for the pro-union content of the masque. Regardless of who paid for this production, however, its imperial themes reflected rnany of the ideas previously espoused by King James.

It would be wrong to depict this masque as a form of propaganda intended to persuade the minds of the general public. Indeed, the srnafi size of the audience meant that only a limited number of privileged people had access to the performance. Wnting on masques in general, Maurice Lee, Jr. has noted that:

the masque was an inward-looking art form, commissioned by the court for its own entertainment.. .. Though masques might contain some social or moral criticism, they were intended to make the court feel good about &se& to exemplify the ma@cence that was supposed to be a major attribute of Renaissance monarchy and, on occasion, to underline to the assembled courtiers the Wrue and wisdom of the monarch's policy.R

'O l'id., 14-1-45; The poem heaps fawning praise on Lord Walden, emphasising his viaue, generosity, honow and grace. See Campion, The Discription of a Maske, 3. " Liadey, "Who Paid for Campion's 'Lord Hay's Masque'?' 145. " M. Lee, Great Britain 's Solomon, 150. While Campion's masque criticised the King's bounty to his Scottish foilowers, it still performed the essentid hction of lauding the principle of the monarch's unionist policies." There is no extant List of audience members, but since James wanted the mariage of Hay and Demy to serve as an exampie to others, many prominent court figures probably were present. The overall message conveyed by the performance appealed to the court to heed James' calls for love and unity between the Engltsh and

Scottish aristocracy.

Shortiy &er the performance, Campion published the text version of the masque.

The Discription of a M& served to reinforce the political function of the original performance for a wider audience. The pro-union messages articulated within the masque now became availabie to those outside the court- In addition to Campion's text of the performance, the printed Discription included a number of dedicatory poems and epigrams. These also supported the Anglo-Scotiish union Campion directed the first of his dedicatory poems to the King. AUuding to the matrimonial discourse used by James, this poem clearly articulated the aims of his Anglo-Scottish marriage policy for the arktocracy and his desire to produce a single British nation:

O how then great Monarch with how whe a me Do you these bloods devided mixe in one, And with like consanguinities prepare The high, and everliving Union Tweene Scots, and English: who can wonder then If he that mamies kingdoms marries men?"

73 Butler has argued that the promotion of James' pro-Bntain agenda uimprised a vital role of mob Jacobean masques. He has pointed out "the Iacobean masques wminthakly iwolved in both the invention and dissemination of the Stuart's image of Chemselves as preeminentiy a British monarchy." See Butler, The invention of Britain and the &y Stuart masque," 70. 74 Campion, The Discription of a Marke. 1, Not only did James seek to join his kingdorns through his regd mamage to a single uniteci realm, but he also sought to have his two peoples becorne one through maniage as well.

To underfine Merthe new King's role as an imperial nation-builder, Campion also included an epigram depicting James as the realisation of Merlinic prophecy . He

Likened James to King Arthur who was destined one day to return f?om his resting place to reunite the people of Britain under a single cr~wn.'~Perhaps these flattering additions were meant to soften some of the cnticisms contained in the performance itself Even though James was often receptive to gentle criticism, Campion would have wanted to please füs sovereign with the masque in the hopes that he wodd be rewarded with future commissions. Campion's poetical concessions in the p~tedDiscription, however, may not have &ciently compensated for his depiction of Scottish courtiers as rapacious. A year later, when another of James' Scottish favourites took an English bride, Ben Jonson was chosen to compose the masque.

This masque celebrated the nuptials between John Ramsay, Viscount Haddington, and Lady EJizabeth Radcliffe, daughter of the Earl of ~ussex.'~Ramsay had risen to prominence in Augus 1600 when he rescued the King fkom abduction by the Earl of

Gowrie and his brother. Whether a Gowrie conspiracy occurred or whether the King concocted the story to destroy his enemies has never received a satisfactory expldon

From his role, however, Ramsay gained irnmediate favo~r?~When the wedding took place on 11 February 1608, the King showed bis continuing support by granting

75 Ibid. 76 Nichok, ed, Progresses, Processions, and Magnificent Festivities of King James the First, a, 176. " S. Lee, ed,Dictionary of National Biogmphy, XVi, 70 1; Weldoq Court and Character of King James, 7-8. Haddington and his new bride a considerable pension worth £600 per arn~rn.'~In fact, the matching of Haddington With such a desirable wife also represented a sign of the

King's favour. The Earl of Sussex was the highest raaking English peer at the time to have been persuaded to give a daughter in marriage to a ~wt.'~A letter written the previous November by Sir George Chaworth to the Earl of Shrewsbury exposed the

King's hand in making the match.80 How the King persuaded Sussex to part with his daughter is not explained, but if the Earl was hoping for rewards similar to those granted to Denny, he must have been disappointed for none was recorded.*' The mamage ofthis

Scot into a great English noble family not only gave him greater financial security and a permanent tie to England it furthered James' dream of a union of the two nations'

With the memory of Hay's weddmg celebrations stiU somewhat &es& the court anxiously awaited the masque expected to foilow Haddington's nuptials. In Febmary

1608, Rowland Whyte conveyed the mood at Whitehali to the Earl of Shrewsbury when he wrote that: "The Great Maske intended for my lord Hadington's mariage is now the only thing thought upon at court."" The court did not anticipate the masque as an opportunity to witness more political propaganda, but rather looked forward to the visual splendeur ofthe perfomiance, and perhaps even more to the revelry sure to foliow. A bout of hi& stakes gambling was planned as the high point ofthe post-masque

Cafendar ofStare Papers, Domestic, VIE, 1603-16 10,403. '' Sussex ranked &th in precedence among ali Enghsh peers, exduding those who held great offices of state. See The Journal of the House ojhrds, II, 549. *O Chaworth outlined how James had setued some of Haddington's debts and then explained Lhat: "the King could doe no lesse for him, he king to match so weii as to my Lord of Sussex's daughter." See Nichols, ed-, Progresses, Processions. urtdhfagnificent Festivities of King James the Fa,II, 159-60. 81 Calendnr of State Papers, Domestic, VIiI, 1603-1610. 82 Nichols, ed,Progresses. Processions, and Magnijicent Festivities of King James the First, II, 175. entertainments in which players were expected to corne to the game with a minimum of

£300.~Haddingtods weddiog celebrations certainly did not display the same intellectual

preoccupations with Anglo-Scottish unity as had ~a~'s."National themes were not

entirely absent, however, fiom the wedding and its festivities.

The celebratory masque performed &er Haddington's wedding exemplified the

union between the two aristocracies in a much more practical way than had Hay's masque.

Whereas al1 but one of the performers in Hay's masque had been English, the eleven

masquers on this occasion were drawn alrnost equally fiom both ~tions.~'The five

English masquers were the Earls of Arundel, Pembroke, and Montgomery, Lord Walden,

and Sir Robert Rich. The six Scottish masquers were the Duke of Lennox and his brother

the Lord DYAubigny,Lords Hay and Sanquhar, Sir John Kennedy, and the Earl of Mar's

eldest son and heir." In addition to Lord Hay, the Scottish Lord DyAubigny, Lord

Sanquhar, and Sir John Kennedy had already taken English wives, while the English Lord

Walden had taken a Scottish wife. Even though the content of the masque did not stress national themes, the cohtments of messengers spoke a message in itself."

King James hoped to found a new British aristocracy and his imperiai vision required many such messengers. James Lord Hay provides us with an example of James'

83 Ibid.; Chamberlain, nie Letters of John Chamberlain, 253. " Nichols, ed,Progresses, Processions, anndhfagnificentFestivities of King Jmes the First7 Il, 176-188. " Sir Richard Preston, later Lord Dingwall, was a Scat who ironically danced as a Knight of Apollo in Hay's masque. See Campion, The Discription of a ~Maske,7; for details of his Scoîtish origins see Brown, 'The Scottish Aristocracy, Anglicization and the Court," 569. 86 Nichols, ed., Progresses, Processions, and Magn~ficentFestivities of King James the First, v. II, 175. 87 The masque emphasised themes of erotic love and uxoriousness with Venus, Cupid and other representatives of the Roman pantheon figuring promine@ in the dialogue. See Ben Jonson, The Description of the hiasque, with Nuptial Songs, ut the Lord Kscount Hadington 's Marriage at Cowt, on Shrove Tuesday at night; celebrating the happy Mamiage of John Lord Ramsey, Yiscvcx~tHadingturt, with the Lady EIizabeth Ratchfle, daughter to rhe Right Honourable Robert Earl ofSussex in Zbid, 176- 188. ideal of a British aristocrat. It is clear that the King planned to make Hay a cultrisal mediator between his two kingdoms; Hay was to serve as a model courtier and his extravagant displays were to exemplify the behaviour the King expected of those at court.

Through Hayysexample, Engtish aristocrats could also see the types of rewards they might expect as loyal servants of the crown. Representing the ideal British coder, Hay's elevation to the English peerage and subsequent marriage were to provide models of the perfect unity which could occur between the nobility.

While Hay was expected to serve as a type of cdtural envoy fiom Scotland, he did not Wear his nationality on his sleeve. Hay prefened the Company of Englishmen and gain4 acceptance at court "by choosing their fi-iendships and conversation and really prefen-hg it to any of his ~wn."~~David Lloyd portrayed Hay as a man driven more by personal ambition than national aspirations. Hay was not foolish and was more than willing to dow himself to be used by the King as a model courtier if it me- he could obtain more weaith and status. Hay "took care, that as his Expedition and Civility made him the great Master of Requeas at court so his Marriage with the Heir-generd of the

Demies should get hirn an estate in the country."89Fuiancial and not national motives seem to have encouraged Hay to find an English bride. Lndeed, Hay was just as happy to become English as British; rather than sedgas a distinctively Scottish cultural agent of the King, he seemed willing to dow himself to be assimüated. With James' cultural mediator ambivalent in questions of nationality, it is perhaps unsurprishg that &y's example did not encourage other courtiers to adopt a new British sense ofidentity. James'

" Clarendon, The History of the RebefZion,1, 108. 89 Lloyd, "Observations on the Life of James Hay," 776. plan of sethg Hay up as a mode1 Scottish courtier for his Engltsh subjects to admire and

emulate met with only limited success.

Personally, however, Hay seems to have become rather popular and many

conternporary commentaton noted his grace and affability. Sir Anthony Weldon, one of

the most vitnolic Scotophobes at the English court, was uncharacteristically unstinting in

his praise for Hay: "Tnily, he was a most compleat, and well accomplished Gentleman,

modest and Courtlike, and [possessed] so faire a derneanour as made hi.be generally belo~ed."~~Clarendon went even fùrther to claim that Hay had 'Wought hirnself.. . into greater affection and esteem with the whole English nation, than any other of that

country."g1 This high regard, however, did not necessarily transfer to his fellow Scots.

The grants and offices given to Scots by the crown tended to inspire feelings of jealousy and contempt among the English rather than fiaternity. Neither did the mamages of

Scottish courtiers to English brides create a new British aristocracy. Ironically, the matrimonial policies of James tended to encourage his Scottish courtiers to become assimilated. Regardless of their efficacy, however, this policy at lest helped the King to feel optimistic about a larger national union. With the members of his visible world, the

Westminster court, engaging in intermarriage, he could imagine that the two nations were being Likewise conjoined.

The image of marriage remained crucial to the early seventeenth-century vision of Anglo-Scottish national union. Firstly, James viewed the union of the king with bis two kingdoms as a marriage of sorts and employed matrimonial metaphors in his calls for imperial unity. He sincerely hoped that with his husbandly guidance the two nations

Weldon, The Court of King James, 28. could be persuaded to join together in bonds of love and katernity. Secondly, to bring about a more concrete union of the English and Scottish aristocracies. James encouraged intemarriage between the Scots and English at court. James tried to bring about peace, conseasus, and unity by encourasing nich ties of kinship and blood. Once the aristocracies of the two nations had been united by bonds of marriage, their parochial national identiîies would become blurred. Although other mankges between aristocrats fiom the two kingdoms took place in the first decade of the reign of King James VI and 1, that of James Lord Hay to Honora De~yin 1607 was to serve as an example to the court of the perfect union James sought between the aristocracies of his two kingdoms. With the accompanying sermon and masque, the wedding became a political and national event which both reailk-med James' idealised vision of union and instructed those at court of the type of individual marital unions he expected of his courtiers.

'' Ciarendon, The History of the Rebellion, I, 108. -R -R V

Conclusion

In 1603, the union of the English and Scottish crowns brought together two traditionally hostile nations. In an effort to ameliorate the problems of ruling a composite monarchy and to ensure peace in his new realms, James VI and I worked to fashion a reconstituted British nation. This 'Union of Love' entailed an attempted wholesale merger of the two nations. It did not require a political or legal union and, indeed, James and his agents actually worked to achieve a degree of national integration as a precursory step towards fùrther state integration. To assist in the development of fkaternal feelings and to promote Anglo-Scottish social intercourse, James actively pursued integrationist policies. He directed much of his nation-building efforts at his court in Westminster and specifically laboured to create a core of Anglo-Scottish or British aristocrats. Not only was the court the centre of his visible world, but its members were to provide a mode1 for the rest of the nation to ernulate. During the first five years of his English reign, the King and his pro-union agents tried to project the court and crown as distinctly British institutions.

In an effort to eliminate a visual symbol of division, James proclaimed himself

King of Great Britain. By taking away the narne of stranger - '&the very seed of division" - he hoped that his English and Scottish subjects would begin to view each other as part of a single national farniiy. In an inherently conservative society where innovations were viewed with scepticism, British propagandists appealed to historic notions of Brïtain and portrayed the prospective merger as a re-unification of a kingdom and nation which had existed in ancient times. They hoped that the common name would eliminate issues of national precedence and gradually render parochial identifications and jealousies a thing of bistory. This did occur to a certain degree at the royal court and court poets and playwrights paid homage to Bntannia in many of their works.

Unfortunately for James, the English House of Commons refused to enact an official alteration in their kingdom's name and Britain failed to gain widespread acceptance and recognition outside of the court.

To effea a union of substance, James and his agents next endeavoured to erase

Werences within the body of the nascent British nation. %y rnaking Scots and

Englishmen naturd in both kingdoms and granting them the same fieedoms and privileges throughout Britain, it was hoped, divisions would be further eroded. The

English Commons again proved recalcitrant, however, and thwarted the King's efforts to achieve a general naturalisation. James was able to achieve a victory in the long-term by having the de jure naturalisation of the postnd recognised, but he was able to do this only by avoiding parliament and effecting the confirmation through the King's Bench.

At corn, the King was able to achieve his goals more fully. Through the Liberal use of his prerogative, James was able to naturalise a number of Scottish aristocrats in England and at least partially redise his vision of a British aristocracy by creating a core group of

Britanicised courtiers.

James proceeded Merto foster the development of a British aristocracy through the promotion of Anglo-Scottish marriages. in an effort to increase the bonds of love between the two nations, he personally orchestrated mmiages between leading Scottish and English figures at court. In the shon tenn, the marriages established kioship ties and alliances between the Ieading families of his two British kingdoms; in the long term, the CO-minglingof Anglo-Scottish blood would create fiiture generations of Bntons. A number of high profile weddings served the additional purpose of providing examples of individual unions which James encouraged his subjects to emulate. AUied with the policy of orchestrating instructional matrimonial unions, the King efevated a number of

Scots to serve as exemplars of lames7 ideal of what British courtiers should be. He employed Scots like James Lord Hay, who had been both naturalised in England and married to an English bride, to act as cultural mediators and models of refined Scottish gentility. Through the interaction with and observance of such Scots, it was hoped that the traditional barriers of Scotophobia would be worn away and replaced by new bonds of hternity and respect.

Although notions of love and fratenity reappeared fiequently in the discourses on national union, they reflected hope more than reality. The nation-building efforts of

James and his agents oflen had an effed opposite of their intent; they tended to produce nationalist reactions in both England and Scotland. Pro-British spokesmen were not able to overcome the mistrust and prejudices that had helped to shape Anglo-Scottish relations for centuries and their actions ofien provoked members of both nations to assume defensive postures. The parliaments of both England and Scotland, as well as the public at large, seemed unenthusiastic or, at best, apathetic to Britis h-fashioning activities. It was only at court that the King achieved a measure of immediate success. Through the naturalisation of individual Scots and the promotion of Anglo-Scottish marnages, James was able to give his London court a genuinely British flavour. Since the court was the primary focus of both his concern and his nation-building policies, his efforts to establish a British nation should not be viewed as a complete failure. Indeed, in the long term, these labours and pro-British rhetoric which accompanied them helped to lay the mental foundations upon which a durable and lasting national and political union could be achieved. IronicalIy, the dream of a united Bntain was reaiised not by the first Stuart monarch, but a hundred years later under very different circumstances by Queen Aime, the last of the dynasty. Bibliography

Primary Sources

Campion, Thomas. The Discription of n Marke, Presented befoe the Kinges Majestie at White-Hu& on Twelfih Night fast, kt the honmir of Lord Hayes, and his Bride, Datighter mui Heire to the Honourable the Lord Dennye, their Mmriage having been the meDay at Court Sohnized. London: John Wmdet for John Brown, 1607.

Carleton, Dudley. Dzidley Carleton tu Joh~zChamberZain, 1603-1 624: Jacobean Letters. Maurice Lee, Jr., ed. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1972.

Chamberlain, John. The Letters of John Chamberlain. Norman Egbert McClure, ed. Philadelphia: The Amencan Philosophical Society, 1939. Vol. 1.

Clarendon, Edward, Earl of me History of the Rebelfion and Civil Wms in E-d. Odord: Clarendon Press, 1826. Vol. 1

Cornwallis, Sir William. The Miracz12ms and Hqupze Union of Engiand and Scotfand; by how ahirable meanes ii is eflected: how profitable to both nations; mtd hmfree of any irmvenience either pst, present or to be discemed. London: Edward Blount, 1604.

Doddridge, Sir John. A brief corisideracion of the Uyon of twoe kingdomes in Bruce R Galloway and Brian P. Levack, eds. The Jacobean Union: Six Tracts of 160-1. Edinburgh: Scottish History Society, 1985. pp. 14% 159.

Gordon, John. ENmKONor a Sermon of the mon of Great Brittannie, in mtiquitie of language, name religion rmd Kinkgdome. London: Georgü Bishop, 1604.

Harington, Sir John. A Tract on the Succession to the Crown (AB. 1602). New York: Burt Franklin, 1970.

James VI and 1, King of Scotland, England and Ireland. England's Wedding Gment, or a prepuratiori to King Jmes his RoyaiZ Cormation. London: Thomas Pavier, 1603.

. By the King (ProcZamation mnouncing the nmtitle of Kzng of Great Britain .. .) London: Robert Barker, 1604.

- James P7 and 1: Political Writings. Johann Sommerville, ed. Cambridge: Camrîdge University Press, 1994. Jonson, Ben. The Description of the Mqte, with Nuptial Songs, at the Lord Viscount Hadington 's Mim-îage ut Court, on Shrove Tues- at night; ceZe&r&kg the happy Mmiage of John Lord Rmsey, Viscount H'ingron, with the Lad'y Elizabeth RatchfJe, daz~ghterto the Rzght Homurable Robert Ear( of Sussex in John Nichols, ed. Progresses, Processions, and Magnzjkent Festivities of King James the First, His Royal Consort Famiiy m>d Court. New York: Burt Franl&n, 1828. Vol. II. pp. 176-188.

Lloyd, Dwid. "Observations on the Life of James Hay, Earl of Carlisle7'in State- Worthies: or, the States-Men And Fmrites of England Since the Reformation. London: Peter Parker, 1679. pp. 774-777.

Nichols, John, ed. Progresses, Processions. and MagnzjTcent Festivties of King Jmes the First. His Royal Comort Fmiiy and Court. New York: Burt Franklin, 1828. Vols. 1-IV.

Pont, Robert. Of the Union of Brîtayne in Bruce R Gdoway and Brian P. Levack, eds. Re Jacobean Union: Six Tracts of 1604. Edinburgh: Scottish History Society, 1985. pp. 1-38.

Russell, John. A treatise of the happie and blissed Unioun in Bruce R Galloway and Brian P. Levack, eds. The Jacobean Unior?:Six Tracts of 1604. Edinburgh: Scottish History Society, 1985. pp. 75-141.

Savile, Sir Heq. HisturicaZll Collections in Bruce R. Gailoway and Bnan P. Levack, eds. The Jacobean Union: Six Tracts of l6M. Edinburgh: Scottish History Socieîy, 1985. pp. 184-240.

Spedding, James, ed. The Workr of Francis Bacon, Baron Verulm, Vïscoimt 3.Alban, and Lord Chancellor of England. New York: Garrett, 1968. Vols. X-XI.

Spelman, Sir Henry. Of the Union in Bruce R. Galloway and Bnan P. Levack, eds. nt. Jacobem Union: Sir Tracts of 160-1. Edinburgh: Scottish History Society, 1 985. pp. 160-183.

Thornborough, John. A Discourse Plaine& ProMng the evidePlt utilitie and urgent neceme of the desired happie Union of the two fmnous Kingdomes of Englrd and Scotlmd: by way of mswer to certaine objections against the same. London: Richard Field for Thomas Chard, 1604.

A treatise about the Union of England mtd Scotland in Bruce R Galloway and Bnan P. Levack, eds. The Jacobean Union: Six Tracts of 1604. Edinburgh: Scottish History Society, 1985. pp. 39-74. Weldon, Sir Anthony. The Cmand Character of King James. Whereunto is now &d the Couri of King Charles: Continued Unio the begrgrnningof these Unhappy Times. London: R. I., 165 1.

. A Perfect Description of the People and Country of Scotld London: Rich Lownds, 1659.

Wilkinson, Robert. 7he Merchant Royalf: A Sennon Preached at White-Hall befoe the Kings Mujestie, at the Nziptiafs of the Right Honouruble the Lord Hq md hzs Lu&, upotz the Twelfe aky Zast bezng Jmary, 6. 1607. London: Felix Kingston, 1607.

Willson, David Harris, ed. The Pmlimentary Dias, of Robert Bowyer, 1606-1607. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 193 1.

State Papers and Documents

Calendar of State Papers and Mamscripts, Rdating to English Affairs, i3isting in the Archives and Collections of Venice and in Other Librm-es of NorthItaly. Horatio F. Brown, ed.. London: His Majesty' s Stationery Office, 1904. Vol. 10, 1603-1607. Vol. 11, 1608-1612.

Calendar of State Pqers, Domestic Series, of the Re@ of James 1. Mary Anne Everett Green, ed. London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, & Roberts, 1857. Vol. 8, 1603-1610. Vol. 12, 1623-1625.

Great Bntain Privy Council. Acts of the Privy Cm~milof England- Vol XXXII, AD 1601-1604. J. R Dasent, ed. London: Krs Majesty's Stationery Office, 1907.

Great Britain Sovereign. Stunrt Royal Prockm&.ons, VoZume 1: Royal Proclamations of King Jmes 1 1603-1625. James F. Larkin and Paul L. Hughes, eds. Oxford: Clarenden Press, 1973.

Historical Mamscripts Cmmission, Buccfeuch. London: fis Majesty's Stationery Office, 1926. Vol. III.

Hisiorical Mmscriprs Commission, Third Report. London: Her Maj esty7s Stationery Office, 1870.

Jm~rnaIof the Hmse of Communs. London: House of Commons, 1803. Vol. 1, 1547-1628. Journal of the Hmcse of Lorh. London: House of Lords, 1803. Vol. II, 1580-1628.

The Register of the Prj, Carrrcil of Scutland. Vol. CI, A. D. 1599-1 604. David Masson, ed. Ediiurgh: H. M. General Register House, 1884.

Secondary Sources

Biographical Reference Books

Cokayne, George Edward. The Complete Peerage of England, ScotImd, Irelard Great Brituin and the United Kingdom. Vicary Gibbs, ed. London: St . Catherine's Press, 19 13. Vol. III.

Lee, Sidney, ed. Dictzo~aryof NationaI Biogrqhy. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1909. Vols. IV, IX, XVI' XX.

Essays and Journal Articles

Bindoff, S. T. "The Stuarts and their Style." me English Hirtorical Reriew 60 (1945): 192-2 16.

Brom Keith M. "British Histoq: a Sceptical Comment'' in Ronald G. Asch, ed. ntree Nations- A Common History?: E@ünd, Scotld Ireland md British History c. 1600-1920. Bochum: Universitatsverlag Brockmeyer, 1993. pp. 117- 127.

- "Courtiers and Cavaliers: SeMce, Angiicisation and Loyalty Among the Royaiist Nobilitf' in John Mord, ed. The ScoitishNational Covenmt in if'sa British Context. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990. pp. 15 5-92

. "The Nobility of Jacobean Scotland, 1567-1625.'' History Tw34 (Dec 1984): 14-20.

. "The Scottish Aristocracy: Anglicization and the Court, 1603-38." ne Historical Jml36 (1993): 543-76.

. "The vanishing emperor: British kingship and its decline, 1603- 1707" in Roger Mason, ed. Scots and Britons: Sconish Politicaï Thought and the Uhion of 1603. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. pp. 58-8 7.

Butler, Martin. "The invention of Britain and the early Stuart masque" in R Malcolm Smuts, ed. The Stuart Court and Europe: Essays in Politics adPolitical Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press' 1996. pp. 45-85. Cuddy, Neil. "Anglo-Scottish Union and the Court of James 1, 1603-1625." Tmsuctiom of the Royal Historical Society 39 (1989): 107-24.

- "Dynasty and Display: Politics and Painting in England, 1530- 1630'' fiom the Kistoncal Introduction to the Exhibition Catalogue of the Tate Gallery's major winter exhibition, London UK, Oct-Jan 1995-96.

- "The Revival of the Entourage: the Bedchamber of James 1, 1603-1625" in David Starkey et ai. The English Coui?; From the Wms of the Roses fo the Civil Wm.London: Longman, 1987. pp. 173-225.

Ellis, Steven. "The Concept of British History" in Steven G. Ellis and Sarah Barber, eds. Conquesi and Union: Fmhioning a British State. 1485-1725. London: Longman, 1995. pp. 1-7.

. "'Not Mere English': The British Perspective, 1400-1650." Histury Todrry 38 Wecember 1988): 4 1-48.

E~ght,Michael J. "'King James and his island: an archaic kingship be!ieVy The Sconish Historzcal Review 55 (1976): 2940.

Epstein, Joel J. "Francis Bacon and the Issue of Union, 1603-08." me Hzintitzgton Lzbrcny Qumerly 33 (1969170): 121-133.

Kiernan, V. G. "State and Nation in Western Europe." Part And Present 3 1 (1965): 20-38.

Lee, Maurice, Jr. "Scotland, the union and the idea of a 'General Crisis' ." in Roger Mason, ed. Scots and Britons: Scoîtish Political lXmight and the Union of 1603. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. pp. 4 1-57.

Levack, Brian P. "Toward a More Perfect Union: England, Scotland, and the Constitution." in Barbara C. Malament, ed. Afler the Refomatin: Essays in Honoirr of J. If. Hexter. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1 980. pp. 57-74.

Lindley, David. "Campion's Lord Hay 's Masqte and Anglo-Scottish Union," Huntingtun Librmy Q~iarterly43 (1979): 1 - 1 1.

. "'Who Paid for CampionYs'Lord Hay's Masque'?" Notes and Queries 26 (Apd 1979): 144-45. Mayes, Charles R "The Early Stuarts and the Irish Nobiïty." Englsh Historical Review 73 (April 1958): 227-25 1. . "The Sale of Peerages in Early Stuart England." JmmaI of Modern History 29 (1957): 21-37.

Mord, John. "The Fashioning of Bntain" in Steven G. EUis and Sarah Barber, eds. Conquest mtd Union: Faîhioning a British Slate, 1485-1 725. London: Longman, 1995. pp. 8-39.

Neville, Cynthia J. "Local Sentiment and the "National" Enerny in Northem England in the Later Middle Ages." Journal of British Siudies 3 5 (October 1996): 4 19437.

Pocock, J. G. A "British History: A Plea for a New Subject." JmIof Modern History 47 (1975): 601-628.

Russell, Conrad. "Anglo-Scottish Union 1603- 1643 : a Success?" in Anthony Fletcher and Peter Roberts, eds. Religion, Culture mid Society in Er&Modern Brftain: Essays in Honour of Patrick ColZimon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. pp. 238-258.

Smuts, R Malcolm. "Art and the material culture of majesty in early Stuart England" in R Malcolm Smuts, ed. The Stuart Court and Europe: Essays in Politics and Political Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. pp . 86- 112.

Wheeler, Harvey. "Calvin's Case (1608) and the Mcnwain-Schuyler Debate. " Amerkart Historicul Reviav 61 (2956):587-597.

Williamson, Arthur H. ''Number and National Conxiousness: the Edinburgh Mathematicians and Scottish Political Culture at the Union of the Crowns" in Roger Mason, d. Scots and Britom: Scottish Politiccd 7ho21ghtund the Union of 1603. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. pp. 187-212.

Willson, D. K 'cEhgJames I and Anglo-Scottish Unty" in W. Aiken and B. D. Henning, eds. Conjict in Emly Stuart Englmzd: Essays in Honm of Wallace Notestein. London: Jonathan Cape, 1960. pp. 41-56.

Wormald, MY. "The Creation of Britain: Multiple Kingdom or Core and Colonies?" Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. Sixth Series, Vol. II. London: Royal Historical Society, 1992. pp. 175-194.

. "Gunpowder, Treason and Scots." JmaZof British Studies 24 (1985): 141-168.

. "James VI and 1: Two Kings or One?" History 68 (1983): 187-209. - "James VI, James 1 and the Identity of Britain" in Brendan Bradshaw and John Mord1 eds. neBritish Problem, c. 1534-1 70 7: State Fornalion in the AtIantic Archipelago. London: Macmillan, 1996. pp. 148- 171

. "The union of 1603" in Roger Mason, ed. Scots and Britons: Scottish Political Thmghf and the Union of 1603. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. pp. 17-40.

Monographs

Akrigg, G. P. V. Jacobem Page- or the Cairt of King Jàrnes 1. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1962.

Asch, Ronald G., ed. Three Nations- A Cornmon History?: England, ScotIand, Zreld and British History c. 1600-1 920. Bochum: Universitatsverlag Brockmeyer, 1993.

Brown, Keith M. Kingdom or Province? Scotlmzd mtd the Regal Union, i6O3-i71j. London: Macmillan, 1992.

Bush, M. L. neEnglish Aristocracy A Comparative Synthesis. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984.

Davis, Walter R. ïhomas Campion. Boston: Twayne, 1987.

Dobin, Howard. Merlin 's Discipes: Prophecy. Poe@ und Power in Renaissance Englrd Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990.

Epstein, Joel J. Francis Bacon: A PoliticaI Biogrqhy . Athens: Ohio University Press, 1977.

Ferguson, William. ScotZmd's Relations with England: A Swey to 1707. Edinburgh: John Dodd, 1977.

Fisher, David Hackett. Historims ' FalZacies: 7''u Logic of Hisforical Thorght. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1970.

Galloway, Bruce. me Union of EngZmd and ScotZm~1603-1 608. Edinburgh: John Donald, 1986.

Gardiner, Juliet and Neil Wenborn, 4s. The History Today Cornpanion to Bn'tish Hisfory. London: Collins & Brown, 1995. Jackson, William A., ed. Records of the Court of the Stationers' Company, 1602 to 1640. London: The Bibliographical Society, 1957.

Kendnclq T. D. British Antipity. London: Methuen & Co., 1950.

Lee, Maurice, Jr. Great Britain 'sSolomon: Jmes V7 and 1 in His Three Kingdorns. Chicago: University of IlIinois Press, 1990.

Levack, Bnan P. The Formaiion of the British Stde: EngIand, Scotlrmd, and the Union, 1603-1 707. Oxfiord: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Lindley, David. l;homas Campion. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986.

Lowbuv, Edward, Timothy Salter and Alison Young. ThmsCampion: Poet, Composer, Physciam London: Chatto & Wmdus, 1970.

McEachem, Claire. nePoetics of EngZish N~~t~onhood,1590-1612. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2 996.

Moniii, John. The Sconish Ni-onal Covencmt in ifs British Cuntext. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990.

Pw,Graham. ï3e Trophies of Time: E~tglzshAntiqmrians of the Seventeenth Ceniury. Mord: Odiord University Press, 1995.

Peck, Linda Levy. Court Patronage andComplion in Ear& Sfuart England- Boston: UnWin Hyman, 1990.

Russell, Conrad. 7he Fall of the British Monarchies, 163 7-1642. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.

Schreiber, Roy E. The First Carlisle: Sir James Hay, Firsi Earl of Carlisle as Courtier, Diplo~fZtd Entrepreneur, 1580-1636. Philadelphia: The American PhiIosophical Society, 2984.

Stone, Lawrence. The Cnsis of the Aristocracy, 1558-1641. Oxford: Ciarendon Press, 1965.

Stone, Lawrence and Jeanne C. Fawiier Stone. An Open Elire? EngZmd 1540-1800. Mord: Clarendon Press, 1984.

Waliace, Wiard M. "Sir Edwin Sandys and the First Parliament of James 1." Ph.D Dissertation: University of Pennsyiv+ 1940. Williamson, Arthur H. Sconish National C~n~~i~~messin the Age ofJames ?T: me Apocolpse, the Union and the Shaping of Scotland's Public Culture. Edinbugh: John Donald, 1979.

Worrndd, Jenny. Court, Kzrk, and Community. London: Edward Arnold, 198 1.

Young, John R,ed. Celtic Dimensions of the British Civil iVms. Edinbwgh: John Donald, 1997.