Francis Hotoman - Franco Gallia

F >> Francis Hotoman >> Franco Gallia

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

[Transcriber's note: The source text contained inconsistencies in
spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and italicization; these
inconsistencies have been retained in this etext.]

Franco-Gallia:
OR, AN
ACCOUNT
OF THE
Ancient Free State
OF
_FRANCE_,
AND
Most other Parts of EUROPE,
before the Loss of their Liberties.

* * * * *

_Written Originally in Latin by the Famous Civilian_
FRANCIS HOTOMAN,
In the Year 1574.
_And Translated into_ English _by the Author of the_
Account of DENMARK.

* * * * *

The SECOND EDITION, with Additions, and
a _New Preface_ by the Translator.

* * * * *

LONDON:

Printed for Edward Valentine, at the Queen's Head
against St. Dunstan's Church, Fleetstreet, 1721.

Translated by
The Author of the _Account
of_ DENMARK.

The BOOKSELLER
TO THE
READER.

_The following Translation of the Famous_ Hotoman's Franco-Gallia _was
written in the Year 1705, and first publish'd in the Year 1711. The
Author was then at a great Distance from_ London, _and the Publisher of
his Work, for Reasons needless to repeat, did not think fit to print the
Prefatory Discourse sent along with the Original. But this Piece being
seasonable at all Times for the Perusal of_ Englishmen _and more
particularly at this Time, I wou'd no longer keep back from the Publick,
what I more than conjecture will be acceptable to all true Lovers of
their Country._

THE
TRANSLATOR's
PREFACE.

Many Books and Papers have been publish'd since the late _Revolution_,
tending to justify the Proceedings of the People of _England_ at that
happy juncture; by setting in a true Light our just Rights and
Liberties, together with the solid Foundations of our _Constitution:_
Which, in truth, is not ours only, but that of almost all _Europe_
besides; so wisely restor'd and establish'd (if not introduced) by the
_Goths_ and _Franks_, whose Descendants we are.

These Books have as constantly had some things, called _Answers_,
written to them, by Persons of different Sentiments; who certainly
either never seriously consider'd, that the were thereby endeavouring to
destroy their own Happiness, and overthrow her Majesty's Title to the
Crown: or (if they knew what they did) presumed upon the _Lenity_ of
that Government they decry'd; which (were there no better Reason) ought
to have recommended it to their Approbation, since it could patiently
bear with such, as were doing all they could to undermine it.

Not to mention the Railing, Virulency, or personal false Reflections in
many of those Answers, (which were always the Signs of a weak Cause, or
a feeble Champion) some of them asserted the _Divine Right_ of an
_Hereditary Monarch_, and the Impiety of _Resistance_ upon any Terms
whatever, notwithstanding any _Authorities_ to the contrary.

Others (and those the more judicious) deny'd positively, that sufficient
_Authorities_ could be produced to prove, that a _free People_ have a
_just Power_ to defend themselves, by opposing their _Prince_, who
endeavours to oppress and enslave them: And alledged, that whatever was
said or done tending that way, proceeded from a Spirit of _Rebellion_,
and _Antimonarchical Principles_.

To confute, or convince this last Sort of Arguers (the first not being
worthy to have Notice taken of them) I set about translating the
_Franco-Gallia_ of that most Learned and Judicious _Civilian_, _Francis
Hotoman_; a Grave, Sincere and Unexceptionable Author, even in the
Opinion of his Adversaries. This Book gives an Account of the Ancient
Free State of above Three Parts in Four of _Europe_; and has of a long
time appeared to me so convincing and instructive in those important
Points he handles, that I could not be idle whilst it remain'd unknown,
in a manner, to _Englishmen_: who, of all People living, have the
greatest Reason and Need to be thoroughly instructed in what it
contains; as having, on the one hand, the most to lose, and on the
other, the least Sense of their Right, to that, which hitherto they seem
(at least in a great measure) to have preserv'd.

It will be obvious to every Reader, that I have taken no great Pains to
write elegantly. What I endeavour at, is as plain a Stile as possible,
which on this Occasion I take to be the best: For since the Instruction
of Mankind ought to be the principal Drift of all Writers (of History
especially); whoever writes to the Capacity of most Readers, in my
Opinion most fully answers the End.

I am not ignorant, how tiresome and difficult a Piece of Work it is to
translate, nor how little valued in the World. My Experience has
convinced me, that 'tis more troublesome and teazing than to write and
invent at once. The Idiom of the Language out of which one translates,
runs so in the Head, that 'tis next to impossible not to fall frequently
into it. And the more bald and incorrect the Stile of the Original is,
the more shall that of the Translation be so too. Many of the Quotations
in this Book are drawn from Priests, Monks, Friars, and Civil Lawyers,
who minded more, in those barbarous Ages, the Substance than the Stile
of their Writings: And I hope those Considerations may atone for several
Faults, which might be found in my Share of this Work.

But I desire not to be misunderstood, as if (whilst I am craving Favour
for my self) I were making any Apology for such a Number of mercenary
Scribblers, Animadverters, and Translators, as pester us in this Age;
who generally spoil the good Books which fall into their Hands, and
hinder others from obliging the Publick, who otherwise would do it to
greater Advantage.

I take this Author to be one of those few, that has had the good Luck to
escape them; and I make use of this Occasion to declare, that the chief
Motive which induces me to send abroad this small Treatise, is a
sincere desire of instructing the only Possessors of true Liberty in the
World, what Right and Title that have to that Liberty; of what a great
Value it is; what Misery follows the Loss of it; how easily, if Care be
taken in time, it may be preserv'd: And if this either opens the Eyes,
or confirms the honourable Resolutions of any of my worthy Countrymen, I
have gained a glorious End; and done that in my Study, which I shou'd
have promoted any other way, had I been called to it. I hope to die with
the Comfort of believing, that _Old England_ will continue to be a free
Country, and _know_ itself to be _such_; that my Friends, Relations and
Children, with their Posterity, will inherit their Share of this
inestimable Blessing, and that I have contributed my Part to it.

But there is one very great Discouragement under which both I, and all
other Writers and Translators of Books tending to the acquiring or
preserving the publick Liberty, do lie; and that is, the heavy Calumny
thrown upon us, that we are all _Commonwealth's-Men_: Which (in the
ordinary Meaning of the Word) amounts to _Haters_ of _Kingly_
Government; now without broad, malicious Insinuations, that we are no
great Friends of the present.

Indeed were the _Laity_ of our Nation (as too many of our _Clergy_
unhappily are) to be guided by the Sense of one of our Universities,
solemnly and publickly declared by the burning of Twenty seven
Propositions (some of them deserving that Censure, but others being the
very Foundation of all our Civil Rights;) I, and many like me, would
appear to be very much in the wrong. But since the _Revolution_ in
Eighty-eight, that we stand upon another and a better Bottom, tho no
other than our own old one, 'tis time that our _Notions_ should be
suited to our _Constitution_. And truly, as Matters stand, I have often
wondred, either how so many of our Gentlemen, educated under such
Prejudices, shou'd retain any Sense at all of Liberty, for _the hardest
Lesson is to unlearn_; [Footnote: St. Chrysostom] or how an Education so
diametrically opposite to our Bill of Rights, shou'd be so long
encouraged.

Methinks a _Civil Test_ might be contrived, and prove very convenient to
distinguish those that own the _Revolution Principles_, from such as
Tooth and Nail oppose them; and at the same time do fatally propagate
Doctrines, which lay too heavy a Load upon _Christianity_ it self, and
make us prove our own Executioners.

The Names of _Whig_ and _Tory_ will, I am afraid, last as long among us,
as those of _Guelf_ and _Ghibelline_ did in _Italy_. I am sorry for it:
but to some they become necessary for Distinction Sake; not so much for
the Principles formerly adapted to each Name, as for particular and
worse Reasons. For there has been such chopping and changing both of
Names and Principles, that we scarce know who is who. I think it
therefore necessary, in order to appear in my own Colours, to make a
publick Profession of my _Political Faith_; not doubting but it may
agree in several Particulars with that of many worthy Persons, who are
as undeservedly aspers'd as I am.

My Notion of a _Whig_, I mean of a real _Whig_ (for the Nominal are
worse than any Sort of Men) is, That he is one who is exactly for
keeping up to the Strictness of the true old _Gothick Constitution_,
under the _Three Estates_ of _King_ (or _Queen_) _Lords_ and _Commons_;
the _Legislature_ being seated in all Three together, the _Executive_
entrusted with the first, but accountable to the whole Body of the
People, in Case of Male Administration.

A true _Whig_ is of Opinion, that the Executive Power has as just a
Title to the _Allegiance_ and Obedience of the Subject, according to the
_Rules of known Laws enacted by the Legislative_, as the _Subject_ has
to _Protection, Liberty_ and _Property_: And so on the contrary.

A true _Whig_ is not afraid of the Name of a _Commonwealthsman_, because
so many foolish People, who know not what it means, run it down: The
_Anarchy_ and _Confusion_ which these Nations fell into near Sixty Years
ago, and which was _falsly_ called a _Commonwealth_, frightning them out
of the true Construction of the Word. But Queen _Elizabeth_, and many
other of our best Princes, were not scrupulous of calling our Government
a _Commonwealth_, even in their solemn Speeches to _Parliament_. And
indeed if it be not one, I cannot tell by what Name properly to call it:
For where in the very _Frame_ of the _Constitution_, the Good of the
_Whole_ is taken care of by the _Whole_ (as 'tis in our Case) the having
a _King_ or _Queen_ at the Head of it, alters not the Case; and the
softning of it by calling it a _Limited Monarchy_, seems a Kind of
Contradiction in Terms, invented to please some weak and doubting
Persons.

And because some of our _Princes_ in this last Age, did their utmost
Endeavour to destroy this Union and Harmony of the _Three Estates_, and
to be _arbitrary_ or _independent, they_ ought to be looked upon as the
_Aggressors_ upon our Constitution.

This drove the other _Two Estates_ (for the Sake of the publick
Preservation) into the fatal Necessity of providing for themselves; and
when once the Wheel was set a running, 'twas not in the Power of Man to
stop it just where it ought to have stopp'd. This is so ordinary in all
violent Motions, whether mechanick or political, that no body can wonder
at it.

But no wise Men approved of the ill Effects of those violent Motions
either way, cou'd they have help'd them. Yet it must be owned they have
(as often as used, thro an extraordinary Piece of good Fortune) brought
us back to our old Constitution again, which else had been lost; for
there are numberless Instances in History of a Downfal from a State of
_Liberty_ to a _Tyranny_, but very few of a Recovery of _Liberty_ from
_Tyranny_, if this last have had any Length of Time to fix it self and
take Root.

Let all such, who either thro Interest or Ignorance are Adorers of
_absolute Monarchs_, say what they please; an _English Whig_ can never
be so unjust to his Country, and to right Reason, as not to be of
Opinion, that in all Civil Commotions, which Side soever is the
_wrongful Aggressor_, is accountable for all the evil Consequences: And
thro the Course of his reading (tho my Lord _Clarendon's_ Books be
thrown into the Heap) he finds it very difficult to observe, that ever
the People of _England_ took up Arms against their _Prince_, but when
constrain'd to it by a necessary Care of their _Liberties_ and true
_Constitution_.

'Tis certainly as much a _Treason_ and _Rebellion_ against this
_Constitution_, and the _known_ Laws, in a _Prince_ to endeavor to break
thro them, as 'tis in the _People_ to rise against him, whilst he keeps
within their Bounds, and does his Duty. Our Constitution is a Government
of _Laws_, not of _Persons. Allegiance_ and _Protection_ are Obligations
that cannot subsist separately; when one fails, the other falls of
Course. The true Etymology of the word _Loyalty_ (which has been so
strangely wrested in the late Reigns) is an entire Obedience to the
Prince in all his Commands according to Law; that is, to the _Laws
themselves_, to which we owe both an active and passive Obedience.

By the old and true Maxim, that _the King can do no Wrong_, nobody is so
foolish as to conclude, that he has not Strength to murder, to offer
Violence to Women, or Power enough to dispossess a Man wrongfully of his
Estate, or that whatever he does (how wicked soever) is just: but the
Meaning is, he has no _lawful Power_ to do such Things; and our
Constitution considers no _Power_ as _irresistible_, but what is
_lawful_.

And since _Religion_ is become a great and universal Concern, and drawn
into our Government, as it affects every single Man's Conscience; tho my
private Opinion, they ought not to be mingled, nor to have any thing to
do with each other; (I do not speak of our Church Polity, which is a
Part of our State, and dependent upon it) some account must be given of
that Matter.

_Whiggism_ is not circumscrib'd and confin'd to any one or two of the
_Religions_ now profess'd in the World, but diffuses it self among all.
We have known _Jews_, _Turks_, nay, some Papists, (which I own to be a
great Rarity) very great Lovers of the Constitution and Liberty; and
were there rational Grounds to expect, that any Numbers of them cou'd be
so, I shou'd be against using Severities and Distinctions upon Account
of Religion. For a Papist is not dangerous, nor ought to be ill us'd by
any body, because he prays to Saints, believes Purgatory, or the real
Presence in the Eucharist, and pays Divine Worship to an Image or
Picture (which are the common Topicks of our Writers of Controversy
against the Papists;) but because Popery sets up a _foreign Jurisdiction
paramount to our Laws_. So that a _real Papist_ can neither be a true
_Governor_ of a _Protestant_ Country, nor a true _Subject_, and besides,
is the most _Priest-Ridden_ Creature in the World: and (when uppermost)
can bear with no body that differs from him in Opinion; little
considering, that whosoever is against _Liberty of Mind_, is, in effect,
against _Liberty of Body_ too. And therefore all Penal _Acts_ of
_Parliament_ for Opinions _purely_ religious, which have no Influence on
the _State_, are so many Encroachments upon _Liberty_, whilst those
which restrain Vice and Injustice are against _Licentiousness_.

I profess my self to have always been a Member of the _Church_ of
_England_ and am for supporting it in all its _Honours_, _Privileges_
and _Revenues_: but as a Christian and a _Whig_, I must have Charity for
those that differ from me in _religious_ Opinions, whether _Pagans_,
_Turks_, _Jews_, _Papists_, _Quakers_, _Socinians_, _Presbyterians_, or
others. I look upon _Bigotry_ to have always been the very Bane of human
Society, and the Offspring of Interest and Ignorance, which has
occasion'd most of the great Mischiefs that have afflicted Mankind. We
ought no more to expect to be all of one Opinion, as to the Worship of
the _Deity_, than to be all of one Colour or Stature. To stretch or
narrow any Man's Conscience to the Standard of our own, is no less a
Piece of Cruelty than that of _Procrustes_ the Tyrant of _Attica_, who
used to fit his Guests to the Length of his own Iron Bedsted, either by
cutting them shorter, or racking them longer. What just Reason can I
have to be angry with, to endeavour to curb the natural Liberty, or to
retrench the Civil Advantages of an honest Man (who follows the golden
Rule, of _doing to others, as he wou'd have others do to him_, and is
willing and able to serve the Publick) only because he thinks his Way to
Heaven surer or shorter than mine? No body can tell which of us is
mistaken, till the Day of Judgment, or whether any of us be so (for
there may be different Ways to the same End, and I am not for
circumscribing God Almighty's Mercy:) This I am sure of, one shall meet
with the same Positiveness in Opinion, in some of the Priests of all
these Sects; The same Want of Charity, engrossing Heaven by way of
_Monopoly_ to their own _Corporation_, and managing it by a joint Stock,
exclusive of all others (as pernicious in Divinity as in trade, and
perhaps more) The same Pretences to _Miracles, Martyrs, Inspirations,
Merits, Mortifications, Revelations, Austerity, Antiquity_, &c. (as all
Persons conversant with History, or that travel, know to be true) and
this _cui bono_? I think it the Honour of the Reformed Part of the
Christian Profession, and the Church of _England_ in particular, that it
pretends to fewer of these unusual and extraordinary Things, than any
other Religion we know of in the World; being convinced, that these are
not the distinguishing Marks of the Truth of any Religion (I mean, the
assuming obstinate Pretences to them are not;) and it were not amiss, if
we farther enlarg'd our Charity, when we can do it with Safety, or
Advantage to the State.

Let us but consider, how hard and how impolitick it is to condemn all
People, but such as think of the Divinity just as we do. May not the
Tables of Persecution be turn'd upon us? A _Mahometan_ in _Turky_ is in
the right, and I (if I carry my own Religion thither) am in the Wrong.
They will have it so. If the _Mahometan_ comes with me to _Christendom_,
I am in the right, and he in the wrong; and hate each other heartily for
differing in Speculations, which ought to have no Influence on Moral
Honesty. Nay, the _Mahometan_ is the more charitable of the two, and
does not push his Zeal so far; for the Christians have been more cruel
and severe in this Point than all the World besides. Surely Reprizals
may be made upon us; as _Calvin_ burnt _Servetus_ at _Geneva_, Queen
_Mary_ burnt _Cranmer_ at _London_. I am sorry I cannot readily find a
more exact Parallel. The Sword cuts with both Edges. Why, I pray you,
may we not all be Fellow-Citizens of the World? And provided it be not
the Principle of one or more Religions to extirpate all others, and to
turn Persecutors when they get Power (for such are not to be endured;) I
say, why shou'd we offer to hinder any Man from doing with his own Soul
what he thinks fitting? Why shou'd we not make use of his Body, Estate,
and Understanding, for the publick Good? Let a Man's Life, Substance,
and Liberty be under the Protection of the Laws; and I dare answer for
him (whilst his Stake is among us) he will never be in a different
Interest, nor willing to quit this Protection, or to exchange it for
_Poverty, Slavery_, and _Misery_.

The thriving of any one _single Person_ by honest Means, is the Thriving
of the _Commonwealth_ wherein he resides. And in what Place soever of
the World such Encouragement is given, as that in it one may securely
and peaceably enjoy _Property_ and _Liberty_ both of _Mind_ and _Body_;
'tis impossible but that Place must flourish in _Riches_ and in
_People_, which are the _truest Riches_ of any Country.

But as, on the one hand, a true _Whig_ thinks that all Opinions purely
spiritual and notional ought to be indulg'd; so on the other, he is for
_severely punishing_ all _Immoralities, Breach_ of _Laws, Violence_ and
_Injustice_. A Minister's Tythes are as much his Right, as any Layman's
Estate can be his; and no Pretence of Religion or Conscience can warrant
the substracting of them, whilst the Law is in Being which makes them
payable: For a _Whig_ is far from the Opinion, that they are due by any
other Title. It wou'd make a Man's Ears tingle, to hear the _Divine
Right_ insisted upon for any _human Institutions_; and to find God
_Almighty_ brought in as a Principal there, where there is no Necessity
for it. To affirm, that _Monarchy, Episcopacy, Synods, Tythes_, the
_Hereditary Succession_ to the _Crown_, &c. are _Jure Divino_; is to
cram them down a Man's Throat; and tell him in plain Terms, that he must
submit to any of them under all Inconveniencies, whether the Laws of his
Country are for it or against it. Every _Whig_ owns _Submission_ to
Government to be an _Ordinance_ of God. _Submit your selves to every
Ordinance of Man, for the Lord's Sake_, says the Apostle. Where (by the
way) pray take notice, he calls them _Ordinances of Man_; and gives you
the true Notion, how far any thing can be said to be _Jure Divino_:
which is far short of what your high-flown Assertors of the _Jus
Divinum_ wou'd carry it, and proves as strongly for a _Republican_
Government as a _Monarchical_; tho' in truth it affects neither, where
the very Ends of Government are destroyed.

A right _Whig_ looks upon _frequent Parliaments_ as such a _fundamental_
Part of the Constitution, that even no _Parliament_ can part with this
Right. _High Whiggism_ is for _Annual_ Parliaments, and _Low Whiggism_
for _Triennial_, with annual Meetings. I leave it to every Man's
Judgment, which of these wou'd be the truest Representative; wou'd
soonest ease the House of that Number of Members that have Offices and
Employments, or take Pensions from the Court; is least liable to
Corruption; wou'd prevent exorbitant Expence, and soonest destroy the
pernicious Practice of drinking and bribing for Elections, or is most
conformable to ancient Custom. The Law that lately pass'd with so much
Struggle for _Triennial_ Parliaments shall content me, till the
_Legislative_ shall think fit to make them _Annual_.

But methinks (and this I write with great Submission and Deference) that
(since the passing that Act) it seems inconsistent with the Reason of
the thing, and preposterous, for the _first_ Parliament after any
Prince's _Accession_ to the _Crown_, to give the publick Revenue _arising
by Taxes_, for a longer time than that _Parliament's own Duration_. I
cannot see why the Members of the _first_ Parliament shou'd (as the Case
now stands) engross to themselves all the Power of giving, as well as
all the Merit and Rewards due to such a Gift: and why _succeeding_
Parliaments shou'd not, in their turn, have it in their Power to oblige
the Prince, or to streighten him, if they saw Occasion; and pare his
Nails, if they were convinced he made _ill Use_ of such a _Revenue_. I
am sure we have had Instances of this Kind; and a wise Body of Senators
ought always to provide against the worst that might happen. The
_Honey-Moon_ of _Government_ is a dangerous Season; the Rights and
Liberties of the People run a greater Risk at that time, thro their own
Representatives Compliments and Compliances, than they are ever likely
to do during that Reign: and 'tis safer to break this Practice, when we
have the Prospect of a good and gracious Prince upon the Throne, than
when we have an inflexible Person, who thinks every Offer an Affront,
which comes not up to the Height of what his Predecessor had, without
considering whether it were well or ill done at first.

The Revenues of our Kings, for many Ages, arose out of their
_Crown-Lands_; Taxes on the Subject were raised only for publick
Exigencies. But since we have turn'd the Stream, and been so free of
Revenues for Life, arising from _Impositions_ and _Taxes_, we have given
Occasion to our Princes to dispose of their _Crown-Lands_; and depend
for Maintenance of their Families on such a Sort of Income, as is
thought unjust and ungodly in most Parts of the World, but in
_Christendom_: for many of the arbitrary _Eastern_ Monarchs think so,
and will not eat the Produce of such a Revenue. Now since Matters are
brought to this pass, 'tis plain that our Princes must subsist suitable
to their high State and Condition, in the best manner we are able to
provide for them. And whilst the _Calling_ and _Duration_ of Parliaments
was _precarious_, it might indeed be an _Act of Imprudence_, tho not of
_Injustice_, for any _one Parliament_ to settle such a Sort of _Revenue_
for Life on the Prince: But at present, when all the World knows the
_utmost Extent_ of a Parliament's _possible_ Duration, it seems
disagreeable to Reason, and an Encroachment upon the Right of
_succeeding_ Parliaments (for the future) for any _one Parliament_ to do
that which _another_ cannot undo, or has not Power to do in its turn.

An Old _Whig_ is for chusing such Sort of _Representatives_ to serve in
Parliament, as have _Estates_ in the Kingdom; and those not fleeting
ones, which may be sent beyond Sea by Bills of Exchange by every
Pacquet-Boat, but fix'd and permanent. To which end, every Merchant,
Banker, or other money'd Man, who is ambitious of serving his Country as
a _Senator_, shou'd have also a competent, visible _Land Estate_, as a
Pledge to his _Electors_ that he intends to abide by them, and has the
same Interest with theirs in the publick Taxes, Gains and Losses. I have
heard and weigh'd the Arguments of those who, in Opposition to this,
urged the Unfitness of such, whose Lands were engaged in Debts and
Mortgages, to serve in Parliament, in comparison with the _mony'd Man_
who had no _Land:_ But those Arguments never convinced me.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12