life, of a serious, literal, and business-like sort, which so irritated Charles Lamb.1 James was an early product of this new intellectual type; and, in his case, though the intellectual characteristics are normal, the use made of the training was in that age by no means normal. It was not normal because James was the king of Scotland. The logical consequence of the Calvinistic theories was the establishment of the power of the church in quite as independent a position as that which the church of Rome claimed for itself. There were two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland, Melville told James, "There is Christ Jesus the King and his kingdom the Church, whose subject King James VI is, and of whose kingdom not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member." It is no wonder that James soon thought out a theory of divine right for the king, which was completely contrary to the theory of divine right by virtue of which the church set up its claim to control the king and state. It was necessarily a theory of divine right, because it was only a theory which was made to rest on this basis that could successfully oppose a theory similarly based. As Figgis has pointed out, in the seventeenth century "the notion of divine right was in the air, and so all theories of government were then theories of divine right." 4

2

James's views as to the position of the king in the state are contained in the "Basilikon Doron," published in 1598,5 and more at large in the "Trew Law of free Monarchies," published in the same year. A Monarchy, he holds, is the most perfect form of government, because it approaches most nearly to God's

1 Essays of Elia, Imperfect Sympathies-" The brain of a true Caledonian . . is constructed upon quite a different principle. His Minerva is born in panoply. You are never admitted to see his ideas in their growth-if, indeed, they do grow, and are not rather put together upon principles of clock work. You never catch his mind in an undress. He never hints or suggests anything, but unlades his stock of ideas in perfect order and completeness. He brings his total wealth into company, and gravely unpacks it. His riches are always about him. You cannot cry halves to anything that he finds. He does not find, but bring."

Cited Gardiner, Hist. of England i 54; as Figgis says, Divine Right (1st ed.) 205, "the Presbyterian system, which, asserting national independence of Papal sovereignty, would have yet set up within the nation an organization which would have dwarfed the State and hindered the growth of the nation's life. A Geneva on a great scale would not have been a national Church. Before the Church should have established its position, the nation would have disappeared."

"It is no matter for surprise, that at a time, when the sons of Zeruiah were too strong for him, and he felt his authority a mockery before the insolent representatives of ecclesiastical bigotry, James should promulgate with logical completeness, and grasp with the tenacity of a narrow but clear sighted intellect, the theory of the Divine Right of Kings," ibid 136.

4 Ibid 175.

As to the date of its publication see A. Lang, Hist. of Scotland ii 438-439; at first only seven copies were printed; in Sept. 1599, Dykes, a preacher, laid extracts from the book before the synod of Fife without disclosing the authorship, and the synod, "humourously forwarded them to James as the works of a malignant but anonymous author."

government of the world; and a king is not "mere laicus," but the "office is mixed betwixt the ecclesiastical and civil estate." 2 He proves to his own satisfaction from the Old Testament, that a king, being God's lieutenant, must be implicitly obeyed, and under no circumstances resisted. He is the author and maker of the law, and has power to mitigate, suspend, and interpret it.5 No rival power can be admitted in the state. He is subject to the control neither of the church nor of his subjects, and, being above the law, is answerable only to God for his acts. That he can be bound to his subjects by any enforceable contract he proves to be legally impossible-"None of them can judge of the others break."7 As Figgis says, "In the True Law of Free Monarchies is to be found the doctrine of divine right complete in every detail." 8

It was both remarkable and creditable to James that he should have used his talents to construct a theory of political philosophy. And, in fact, many of his political views were not Lonly sensible but even in advance of his age. He desired peace,

a measure of toleration, and a complete union between England and Scotland. But, though he could write and speak sensibly upon these topics, he was never more than an enlightened philosopher. He never grasped the fact, that, when a policy has been elaborated, the most difficult task yet remains to be accomplished the preparation of the means for, and the removal of the obstacles to its execution.10 And so when he came to play his part upon a larger stage he only succeeded in gaining the reputation of being the wisest fool in Christendom."1

1 Basilikon, Works (ed. 1616) 148; The True Law, ibid 193.

2 Basilikon 182; see vol. ii 444 n. 2 for a similar idea in the Y.BB.; and see vol. iv 215 for similar ideas in the Tudor period.

3 The True Law 195-200-“ Obedience ought to be to him, as to God's Lieutenant in earth, obeying his commands in all things, except directly against God, as the commands of God's minister, acknowledging him a judge set by God over them, having power to judge them, but to be judged only by God, whom to only he must give count of his judgment; fearing him as their judge; loving him as their father; praying for him as their protector; for his continuance if he be good; for his amendment if he be wicked; following and obeying his lawful commands, eschewing and flying his fury in his unlawful, without resistance, but by sobs and tears to God." 4 Ibid 202.

5"Where he sees the lawe doubtsome or rigorous, hee may interprete or mitigate the same, lest otherwise summum jus bee summa injuria: and therefore generall lawes, made publikely in Parliament, may upon knowen respects to the king by his authoritie bee mitigated, and suspended upon causes onely knowen to him," ibid

203.

7 Ibid 207-209.

8 Divine Right of Kings 136.

6 Ibid 202-203. Gardiner, op. cit. i 141-145; cp. his speech to Parliament 1603, Works 491. 10"Keenness of insight into the fluctuating conditions of success, and firmness of will to contend against difficulties in his path, were not amongst the qualities of James," Gardiner, op. cit. v 315.

11" On James himself the final word was spoken when he was called 'The Wisest Fool in Christendom,' ,'" A. Lang, Hist. of Scotland ii 519.

When he came to England he found a set of conditions which appeared to correspond remarkably with his political ideals. The language of the men who had been trained in Elizabeth's court seemed to show that Englishmen were ready to subscribe to his views as to the divinity and the sovereignty of the king; and the language which the lawyers used about him and his prerogative seemed to prove it conclusively. At the same time the attitude of the churchmen, who relied upon the royal supremacy to help them to resist all concessions to the Puritans, contrasted very favourably with the attitude of the Presbyterian ministers, and confirmed him in his belief in the interdependence of monarchy and episcopacy. But, to his surprise, he soon discovered that Parliament claimed to occupy a position in the state which was quite incompatible with the position which he claimed for himself as king; that the language of the lawyers about the king and his prerogative did not prevent them from insisting firmly upon supremacy of the law in the state; and that the sentiments expressed by the bishops were not those of a large number of the members of the church of England. Unfortunately these discoveries wrought no change in his theories or his policy. "He took for realities the formulæ of adulation which survived from the court of a woman and a Tudor." And so he set to work to preach his theories and enforce his policy. Inevitably, therefore, he identified the monarchy with the party which magnified the king at the expense of Parliament, which was prepared to accept his absolute control over the law and the law courts, which was opposed to the smallest alteration in the rites and ceremonies of the church of England. Thus he split the nation into two parties; and the split was intensified by the fact that all the many various causes of dissension which existed in the nation were thus enlisted under the banner of one or other of these two parties. The upholders of the rights and privileges of Parliament, the common lawyers, and

1 "As a king I have least cause of any man to dislike the common law: for no law can be more favourable and advantagious for a king, and extendeth further his prerogative than it doeth," James's speech at Whitehall, 1609, Works, 532.

2 Below 127-128.

3 Thus in 1604 he writes to his Council that "he is surprised to hear reports that the House of Commons, instead of submitting to the opinion of the judges in the points of dispute between them and the king [the case of Goodwin v. Fortescue] take upon them to judge both of the judges opinion and of royal prerogative," S.P. Dom. 1603-1610, 90, vii 1; in 1610 he writes that "he is not satisfied with the reasons given by the council why the offensive speakers in Parliament could not be punished; thinks they are afraid of the burden of doing it, and desires to know what evidence Queen Elizabeth had when she punished Wentworth's father, and why he should be tied to other formalties than she was," ibid 649, lviii 54.

Vol. iv 201-202; vol. v 430.

6 A. Lang, Hist. of Scotland ii 520.

5 Below 123-126.

the Puritans, were united against those who magnified the king's prerogative, against those who supported the courts which competed with the common law courts, and against those who maintained the necessity for strict compliance with the rites and ceremonies of the church. And the contest between these two parties in the nation was embittered by the financial straits of the court-straits which were due in part to the king's extravagance,1 by an unpopular and futile foreign policy, and by the action of some of the bishops and clergy who, not only preached high prerogative doctrines, but even seemed, in their fondness for pomp and ritual, to be inclining towards Rome. We shall see that, as the contest proceeded, the two parties naturally elaborated their constitutional positions; and that there gradually emerged two different theories of the constitution-the theory of the king's and the theory of the Parliament's supporters. Similarly we shall see that the religious opposition to the absolutist, and what seemed to be the Romanising tendency of the church, gradually drew to itself not only the Protestant noncomformists, but also many moderate churchmen.

Thus James chose to become the leader of a party instead of the king of the nation; 2 and his son followed in his footsteps. Both suffered from the fallacy, which is common to all party leaders, of supposing that the opposition to their views came only from a factious minority. Neither could ever grasp the fact that that opposition had the support of the majority of Englishmen; and that their own obstinate adherence to their policy was constantly increasing that majority. They never ceased to hope that the next Parliament would really represent what they

1

' Parliamentary Debates in 1610 (C.S.) xiii-xv.

2" Changes in the balance of power were of course rendered inevitable by the growth of wealth and intelligence and the decline of the influence of the old nobility; but it was largely due to the king that the transition took the form of revolution instead of evolution,” Gooch, English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century 69.

3 James, in his Proclamation on the dissolution of Parliament in 1622, said, "Howsoever in the general proceedings of that House there are many footsteps of loving and well affected duty towards us, yet some ill-tempered spirits have sowed tares among the corn. . . and by their cunning diversions have imposed upon us a necessity of discontinuing this present Parliament without putting unto it the name or period of a session," Prothero, Constitutional Documents 316; so Charles on the dissolution of Parliament in 1628-1629, said, "We do not impute these disasters to the whole House of Commons, knowing that there were amongst them many religious, grave, and well-minded men; but the sincerer and better part of the House was overborne by the practices and clamours of the other, who, careless of their duties, and taking advantage of the times and our necessities, have enforced us to break off this meeting," Gardiner, Constitutional Documents 97; S.P. Dom. 1628-1629, 489, cxxxviii 45, Heath, A. G., writes that, "the untoward disposition of a few ill members of the House of Commons" had caused the dissolution; see Gooch, English Democratic Ideas 102-103, for royalist explanations of the outburst of opposition in 1641; Reresby, Memoirs 43, says that the Queen attributed the Rebellion to "some desperate and infatuated persons."

considered to be the true feelings of the nation, and cease to oppose their wishes. To the end James lectured his Parliaments on the limitations upon their powers,1 and his judges on his right to settle all questions of disputed jurisdiction and to interfere in the trial of cases in which he was interested.2 To the end he upheld, in defiance of Parliament, the churchmen who preached the religious and political doctrines which it detested. Thus, as the reign proceeded, the breach between king and Parliament widened; and it widened more rapidly after the death of Cecil, who, while he lived, had managed to some extent to carry on the Tudor tradition. In the latter years of his reign, James occasionally profited by the political wisdom of Bacon; but matters went from bad to worse as he surrendered himself more and more to the guidance of the showy and incompetent Buckingham. It is true that the breaking off of the negotiations for the Spanish match produced an appearance of unanimity in his relations with his last Parliament. But it was only an appearance. At home the character of his political and religious views, abroad his adherence to a policy which seemed to concede everything to the Catholics, and to do nothing for his Protestant sonin-law, the Elector Palatine, had effectually divided the nation; and, unfortunately, his successor was a man whose principles were bound to aggravate all the existing causes of division.

James, with all his conceit and pedantry, had occasionally some glimmerings of practical common-sense; for he had had a troublous youth. He did not attempt to make changes in the liturgy of the Scotch church; and he warned Buckingham, when he encouraged the impeachment of Middlesex, that he was preparing a rod for his own back. He was capable, as Prothero has said, "of recognizing the impossible.' But Charles had never been brought into contact with the hard realities of life. He had acquired certain fixed and narrow views on political and

1 See the king's message to Parliament in 1610, Parliamentary Debates 1610 (C.S.) 58-complaining of those who were too bold with his government "fetching arguments from former times not to be compared to these "; his letter to the House of Commons Dec. 3, 1621, Prothero, Constitutional Documents 310-311; and his answer to the petition of the House of Commons Dec. 10, 1621-"You usurp upon our prerogative royal and meddle with things far above your reach, and then in the conclusion you protest the contrary; as if a robber would take man's purse and then protest he meant not to rob him"; cp. S.P. Dom. 1623-1625, 260-261, clxv 61 for an account of the king's speech to Parliament in May, 1624-he forbade them, so Ed. Nicholas relates, to complain of his household, and angered the commons by making alterations in the preamble to a subsidy bill on the ground that it contained assertions contrary to his interests; for another account of this episode see Nethersole's letter, ibid 265-266, clxviii 10.

2 See James's speech in the Star Chamber 1616, Works, 549 seqq.; vol. v 428

n. 5, 439-440.

3 Below 129-131.

5 Ibid v 231.

4 Gardiner, Hist. of England vii 282.

Prothero, Documents xxii.