Consider the trade for the making thereof better

[absd]

"For a supply to my necessities, I have reigned eighteen years, in which I have had peace, and I have received far less supply than hath been given to any king since the Conquest. The last queen had, one year with another, above a hundred thousand pounds per annum in subsidies; and in all my time I have had but four subsidies and six fifteens. It is ten years since I had a subsidy, in all which time I have been sparing to trouble you. I have turned myself as nearly to save expenses as I may. I have abated much in my household expenses, in my navies, and the charge of my munition."



After speaking about the affairs of the Palatinate, and calling upon the Parliament to furnish him with money to recover it for his son-in-law, he adds:


"(1)Consider the trade for the making thereof better, and show me the reason why my mint, these eight or nine years, hath not gone. I confess I have been liberal in my grants; but if I be informed, I will amend all hurtful grievances. (2)But whoever shall hasten after grievances, and desire to make himself popular, he hath the spirit of Satan. I was, in my first Parliament, a novice; and in my last, there was a kind of beasts, called undertakers, a dozen of whom undertook to govern the last Parliament, and they led me. I shall thank you for your good office, and desire that the world may say well of our agreement."

From a book entitled History of King Charles the First of England by Jacob Abbott


It is a speech delivered by a king who wants his Parliament to approve funds for his army.
But the underlined parts are really confusing to me.

I'll paraphrase the first underlined part into my version, so please let me know that means the same with the original one.
If it's not, please correct them.

"Consider the war is for making the situation in the Palatinate better, and since I haven't been wasting the money for the last eight or nine years, I want you to approve the funds for this war that I deserve.

And the second part, I have no idea what it's even talking about.
What would the "undertakers" be called in modern English?
And why does the king thank the Parliament's good office? Didn't he condemn the undertakers by calling them "beasts"?

Please help!

In case you need to know more about the context, the full text is available via the link below:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/64344/64344-h/64344-h.htm

 

[emsr2d2]

Absd, when you pasted text into the post box, some spaces were lost (this often happens). Please use the Edit Post facility to add all those missing spaces, change the text back to black, then click Save.

Also note that I have changed your thread title. Titles should include some/all of the words/phrases you are asking us about. I have moved the source (which you originally used as your title) to the main body of your post, after the quote from the book.

 

[Tarheel]

Say:

What would the undertakers be called in modern English?

(I don't think he means the word literally there)

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

From a book entitled History of King Charles the First of England by Jacob Abbott

Again, titles of books, plays, movies, and music albums should be in italics. They are not named. They are entitled.

"For a supply to my necessities, I have reigned eighteen [space] years, in which I have had peace, and I have received far [space] less supply than hath been given to any king since the Conquest. [space] The last queen had, one year with another, above a [space] hundred thousand pounds per annum in subsidies; and in all [space] my time I have had but four subsidies and six fifteens. It [space] is ten years since I had a subsidy, in all which time I have [space] been sparing to trouble you. I have turned myself as nearly [space] to save expenses as I may. I have abated much in my [space] household expenses, in my navies, and the charge of my munition."

After speaking about the affairs of the Palatinate, [space] and calling upon the Parliament to [space] furnish him with money to recover it for his [space] son-in-law, he adds:

"(1) [space] Consider the trade for the making thereof better, and [space] show me the reason why my mint, these eight or nine years, [space] hath not gone.

Reimbursing my expenses would be fair.

I confess I have been liberal in my grants; [space] but if I be informed, I will amend all hurtful grievances. (2) [space] But whoever shall hasten after grievances, and desire to make [space] himself popular, he hath the spirit of Satan.

Anyone who disagrees with me is just trying to impress Parliament and is evil.

I was, in my [space] first Parliament, a novice; and in my last, there was a kind [space] of beasts, called undertakers, a dozen of whom undertook to [space] govern the last Parliament, and they led me.

I blame my early mistakes on inexperience and my later mistakes on enemies who misled me.

I shall thank [space] you for your good office,

Thank you for your good work.

and desire that the world may say [space] well of our agreement."

If you agree to give me more money, the world will approve.

That is from a book entitled History of King Charles the First of England by Jacob Abbott.

It is a speech delivered by a king who wants his Parliament to approve funds for his army. But the underlined parts are really confusing to me.

I'll paraphrase the first underlined part into my version, so please let me know that means the same with the original one.
If it's not, please correct them.

[STRIKE]"[/STRIKE]Consider the war is for making the situation in the Palatinate better, and since I haven't been wasting the money for the last eight or nine years, I want you to approve the funds for this war that I deserve.

And in [STRIKE]case of[/STRIKE] the second part, I have no idea what it's even talking about.

What would the "undertakers" be called in modern English?

Depending on who they were, we might say advisors, staff, assistants, deputies, secretaries, or ministers.

And why does the king thank the Parliament's good office? Didn't he condemn[STRIKE]ed[/STRIKE] the undertakers by calling them "beasts"?

The undertakers are not the people he's talking to.

Please help!

In case you need to know more about the context, the full text is available via the link below:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/64344/64344-h/64344-h.htm

Please make sure your text is formatted correctly so we don't have to do it for you.

 

[emsr2d2]

Absd, even though Charlie has marked up the spaces in the last post, we still need you to edit post #1 to add those missing spaces. If nothing else, it will be good practice for you to to use the Edit Post facility.

 

[absd]

Thank you for your detailed answer!

You said the undertaker could be advisors, staff, assistants, and etc, so you mean it is not possible to specify the meaning of undertaker only with the text given?

 

[GoesStation]

Undertakers evidently meant something different four hundred years ago than it does now. It appears to have been used to refer to a powerful group in Parliament.

 

[Tarheel]

Thank you for your detailed answer!

You said the undertakers could be advisors, staff, assistants, [STRIKE]and[/STRIKE] etc., so do you mean it is not possible to specify the meaning of "undertaker" with only the text given?

It depends.

 

[Rover_KE]

Undertakers evidently meant something different four hundred years ago than it does now.

These days undertakers are funeral directors (like our local firm — Doug Graves and his brother Phil).