History of England, Vol. IV 1621–1623 Samuel Rawson Gardiner History of England, Vol. IV: 1621–1623 Samuel Rawson Gardiner This document is in the public domain. Contents of the Fourth Volume Note on the Text ............................................................................................................. iv XXXIII. The Monopolies. ................................................................................................ 1 XXXIV. The Fall of Lord Chancellor Bacon. .................................................................. 30 XXXV. The Jurisdiction of Parliament. ........................................................................... 58 XXXVI. The Voyage of the ‘Mayflower.’ ....................................................................... 76 XXXVII. The Dissolution of the Union. .......................................................................... 92 XXXVIII. Lord Digby’s Mission to Vienna. .................................................................. 107 XXXIX. The Dissolution of 1621. ................................................................................. 124 XL. The War in the Lower Palatinate. ........................................................................... 145 XLI. Fresh Efforts of Diplomacy. .................................................................................. 173 XLII. The Mission of Endymion Porter. ........................................................................ 194 iii Note on the Text This document is a reproduction of Gardiner’s History of England from the Accession of James I. to the Outbreak of the Civil War, volume IV. The text is based on a printing calling itself a “New Impression”, dated 1908. It has been produced from digital scans made available by the Internet Archive [https://archive.org/]. History of England, vol. IV was first printed in 1883. It is a revision of the second volume of Prince Charles and the Spanish Marriage, originally published in 1869. Some formats of this e-book include superscripted numbers in angle brackets. These correspond to the first words of pages in the original printing. They are included to aid in following citations to pages of the physical book. When they appear in a footnote, they indicate where the footnote was broken across multiple pages. For the most recent version of this book, check the Web site [https://elwin.sdf.org/mon51/]. iv Chapter XXXIII. The Monopolies. <1>So completely were men’s minds occupied with questions of foreign policy in the first weeks of 1621, that if James could only have satisfied the House of Commons that he was in earnest in his intention to support the German Protestants, he might safely have looked forward to the prospect of a peaceful session. Yet there were not wanting complaints of domestic misgovernment, which might easily give rise to considerable agitation, if the Commons met in a discontented mood. “Indeed,” wrote a calm and dispassionate observer in the course of the past summer, “the world is now much terrified with the Star Chamber, there being not so little an offence against any proclamation but is liable and subject to the censure of that Court; and for proclamations and patents, they are become so ordinary that there is no end, every day bringing forth some new project or other. In truth, the world doth even groan under the burthen of these perpetual patents, which are become so frequent that whereas, at the King’s coming in, there were complaints of some eight or nine monopolies then in being, they are now said to be multiplied by so many scores.”1 <2>The history of these monopolies is especially interesting, as the character of no less a man than Bacon is deeply affected by the judgment passed upon them. It is puerile to speak of him as if he could be untouched by the result. Many of them passed the Great Seal whilst it was in his hands. Some of them were backed by his recommendation; and the most unpopular of them received his thorough support, at a time when other men were hanging back from fear of the clamour raised against them. If he really thought as badly of them as modern historians have thought of them, Pope’s notorious line would be true to the letter. He must have been, in sober truth, “the meanest of mankind.” If we wish to know what the views of Bacon and other officers of state really were, the first thing to be done is to consult the original patents. No doubt there is much which will not be learned there. We shall not find any light thrown on the personal motives of those through whose influence they were obtained. But if we find a large number of official declarations spread over a long series of years, and emanating from men who differed from one another in character, in position, and in political opinion, we shall be able to discover whether they contain indications of a settled policy, or are mere makeshifts put forward to cover the greed of unprincipled courtiers. Of the patents subsequently complained of there were two, the patent for inns and the patent for alehouses, which were specially objected to, partly as encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace, and partly as having been made the excuse for gross injustice and oppression. The patent for inns had been originally suggested by the notorious Sir Giles Mompesson, a kinsman of Buckingham, whose fertile brain teemed with projects by which his own purse was to be replenished and the public benefited at the same time. At first sight, indeed, there was much to be said for his scheme; for he proposed that a commission should be issued for the purpose of granting licences to inns. The innkeepers would thus be brought <3>under control. They would be prevented from charging extravagant prices for the food which they served out to their guests. At this point, however, a legal difficulty arose, as it was plain that the justices of the peace had no power to grant such licences. But it was not certain whether such a power 1Chamberlain to Carleton, July 8, S. P. Dom. cxvi. 13. 1 The Monopolies. did not reside in the justices of assize, and it was upon their authority that the whole plan was founded. The Commissioners were to make out the licences, and the justices of assize were, by their signature, to give validity to these documents, of the merits of which they were totally unable to judge. The legal question had been brought before Bacon, when he was still Attorney- General. Unwilling to take the responsibility upon himself, he asked that three of the judges might be associated with him in the inquiry. The result was a unanimous report in favour of the plan. The question of its general policy was then submitted to Suffolk, Montague, Winwood, Lake, and Serjeant Finch, and these men, differing from one another in character and in politics, concurred in recommending the adoption of the scheme.2 The patent was accordingly drawn up, nominating Mompesson and two other persons as commissioners for the purpose.3 It was one of those which were brought to the bedside of the dying Ellesmere, and which he, either from dislike of the grant itself, or as is more probable, merely in order to force the King to accept his resignation, refused to pass. The Great Seal was accordingly affixed to it by the King’s special direction, before the new Lord Keeper was appointed. Bacon’s part in the matter, it will thus be seen, was confined to the opinion which, in common with others, he expressed upon the legality of the patent. No doubt such an opinion was in direct opposition to that at which the judges arrived seven years afterwards.4 Yet it does not appear that his view of the case differed much from <4>that which commended itself generally to lawyers at the time,5 and it is certain that Coke, who, of all men in England, was most likely to have opposed Bacon on a legal question, distinctly stated it to be his opinion that the patent was good in law.6 However this may have been, it soon appeared that the scheme was intolerable in practice. Mompesson and his fellow-commissioners were responsible to no one. No scale of payments had been settled by the patent, and it was therefore their interest to grant as many licences as possible, and to sell them as dearly as they could. Though it had been arranged that the money collected was to go into the Exchequer, it seems for the most part to have found its way into Mompesson’s pocket. It was not long before men were talking all over England of the ease with which keepers of disorderly houses contrived to obtain licences from the Commissioners, and of the harsh and oppressive treatment of those who refused to conform to their demands.7 Whatever arguments might be used in defence of the exercise of a supervision over inns, applied with double force to the attempt to bring under a strict control the petty alehouses, which might so easily degenerate into haunts of thieves and drunkards. It was a subject which had long attracted the notice of Parliament. By an Act passed in 1552,8 alehouse-keepers were required to be licensed by the justices of the peace, and this licence they could only obtain by entering upon recognisances for the maintenance of good order. The first Parliament of James had passed no less than three acts for the restraint of drunkenness.9 The efforts of Parliament had been seconded by the Council. In many parts of the country the justices had been careless of <5>their duties, and had granted licences in profusion. They had accordingly been admonished to be more careful 2Bacon to Buckingham, Oct. 18, 1616, Letters and Life, vi. 361. Charge of the Commons against Mompesson, House of Lords MSS. 3Commission to Mompesson and others, Patent Rolls, 14 Jac. I. Part 22. 4Hutton, Rep. 100. 5Bulstrode, Rep. i. 109. Viner’s Abridgment, xix. 437. Article Inns, sec. 9. 6Proceedings and Debates, i. 65. 7On this subject I have given full particulars in a paper on Bacon’s letters to Christian IV. Archæologia, vol.