The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part E.: From Charles I. to Cromwell — John Shaqi
The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part E.: From Charles I. to CromwellHume, David
PhilosophyPhilosophy
The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part E.: From Charles I. to Cromwell
Hume, David
Great Britain -- History -- Charles I, 1625-1649; Great Britain -- History -- Puritan Revolution, 1642-1660
To all these causes we must yet add another, of considerable moment. The
house of commons, we may observe, was almost entirely governed by a set
of men of the most uncommon capacity and the largest views; men who were
now formed into a regular party, and united, as well by fixed aims
and projects, as by the hardships which some of them had undergone in
prosecution of them. Among these we may mention the names of Sir Edward
Coke, Sir Edwin Sandys, Sir Robert Philips, Sir Francis Seymour, Sir
Dudley Digges, Sir John Elliot, Sir Thomas Wentworth, Mr. Selden, and
Mr. Pym. Animated with a warm regard to liberty, these generous patriots
saw with regret an unbounded power exercised by the crown, and were
resolved to seize the opportunity which the king's necessities offered
them, of reducing the prerogative within more reasonable compass.
Though their ancestors had blindly given way to practices and precedents
favorable to kingly power, and had been able, notwithstanding, to
preserve some small remains of liberty, it would be impossible, they
thought, when all these pretensions were methodised, and prosecuted by
the increasing knowledge of the age, to maintain any shadow of popular
government, in opposition to such unlimited authority in the sovereign.
It was necessary to fix a choice; either to abandon entirely the
privileges of the people, or to secure them by firmer and more precise
barriers than the constitution had hitherto provided for them. In this
dilemma, men of such aspiring geniuses, and such independent fortunes,
could not long deliberate: they boldly embraced the side of freedom,
and resolved to grant no supplies to their necessitous prince, without
extorting concessions in favor of civil liberty. The end they esteemed
beneficent and noble; the means, regular and constitutional. To grant or
refuse supplies was the undoubted privilege of the commons. And as all
human governments, particularly those of a mixed frame, are in continual
fluctuation, it was as natural, in their opinion, and allowable, for
popular assemblies to take advantage of favorable incidents, in order
to secure the subject, as for monarchs, in order to extend their own
authority. With pleasure they beheld the king involved in a foreign war,
which rendered him every day more dependent on the parliament; while at
the same time the situation of the kingdom, even without any military
preparations, gave it sufficient security against all invasion from
foreigners. Perhaps, too, it had partly proceeded from expectations of
this nature, that the popular leaders had been so urgent for a rupture
with Spain; nor is it credible, that religious zeal could so far have
blinded all of them, as to make them discover, in such a measure, any
appearance of necessity, or any hopes of success.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account