Produced by David Starner, J. David Pearce and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team.
The Augustan Reprint Society
John Dryden
His Majesties Declaration Defended
(1681)
With an Introduction by
Godfrey Davies
Publication Number 23
(Series IV, No. 4)
Los Angeles
William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
University of California
1950
GENERAL EDITORS
H. Richard Archer, Clark Memorial Library
Richard C. Boys, University Of Michigan
Edward Niles Hooker, University Of California, Los Angeles
H.T. Swedenberg, Jr., University Of California, Los Angeles
ASSISTANT EDITORS
W. Earl Britton, University of Michigan
John Loftis, University of California, Los Angeles
ADVISORY EDITORS
Emmett L. Avery, State College of Washington
Benjamin Boyce, University of Nebraska
Louis I. Bredvold, University of Michigan
Cleanth Brooks, Yale University
James L. Clifford, Columbia University
Arthur Friedman, University of Chicago
Samuel H. Monk, University of Minnesota
Ernest Mossner, University of Texas
James Sutherland, Queen Mary College, London
INTRODUCTION
Wherever English literature is studied, John Dryden is recognized as the
author of some of the greatest political satires in the language. Until
recently the fact has been overlooked that before he wrote the first of
these satires, _Absalom and Achitophel_, he had entered the political
arena with the prose tract here reproduced. The proof that the
Historiographer Royal contributed to the anti-Whig propaganda of the
spring of 1681 depends partly on contemporary or near-contemporary
statements but principally on internal evidence. An article by Professor
Roswell G. Ham (_The Review of English Studies_, XI (1935), 284-98; Hugh
Macdonald, _John Dryden, A Bibliography_, p. 167) demonstrated Dryden's
authorship so satisfactorily that it is unnecessary to set forth here
the arguments that established this thesis. The time when Dryden was
composing his defence of the royal _Declaration_ is approximately fixed
from the reference to it on June 22, 1681, in _The Observator_, which
had noted the Whig pamphlet Dryden was answering under the date of May
26.
The bitter controversy into which Dryden thrust himself was the
culmination of eleven years' political strife. In 1670, by the secret
Treaty of Dover, Charles II and Louis XIV agreed that the English king
should declare himself a Roman Catholic, and receive from his brother of
France the equivalent of 80,000 pounds sterling and, in case of a
Protestant rebellion, 6000 French soldiers. In addition, the two kings
were pledged to undertake a war for the partition of the United
Provinces. In the words of the late Lord Acton this treaty is "the solid
substance of the phantom which is called the Popish Plot." (_Lectures on
Modern History_ (1930), p. 211) The attempt to carry out the second part
of the treaty was made in 1672, when England and France attacked the
United Provinces which made a successful defence, aided by a coalition
including the Emperor, Elector of Brandenburg, and King of Spain. The
unpopularity of the war compelled Charles II to make peace in 1674.
Meanwhile the King had taken a step to put into operation the first part
of the Treaty of Dover by issuing a Declaration of Indulgence relieving
Catholics and Dissenters alike from the penal laws. He was forced,
however, to withdraw it and to give his assent to the Test Act which
excluded from all public offices those unwilling to take the sacraments
according to the rites of the Church of England. Henceforth Charles II
abandoned all hope of restoring Catholicism, though his brother and
heir, James, Duke of York, already a convert, remained resolute to
secure at least toleration for his co-religionists. But many Englishmen
continued to suspect the royal policy.
Roman Catholicism was feared and hated by many Englishmen for two
distinct reasons. The first was based on bigotry, nourished by memories
of the Marian persecution, the papal bull dethroning Elizabeth, Guy
Fawkes' Plot, and by apprehensions that a Catholic could not be a loyal
subject so long as he recognized the temporal power of the Pope. The
second was political and assumed that Catholicism was the natural
support of absolutism. As Shaftesbury, the leader of the opposition,
stated, popery and slavery went hand in hand. Such fears were deepened
as the general purport of the Treaty of Dover became known.
Into this atmosphere charged with suspicion was interjected the Popish
Plot, said by Titus Oates and his fellow perjurers to be designed to
murder Charles II and place James on the throne. From September 1678,
when Oates began his series of revelations until the end of March 1681,
when the King dissolved at Oxford the third Parliament elected under the
Protestant furore excited by the Plot, Shaftesbury and his followers had
the upper hand. The King was obliged to propose concessions to the
popular will and to offer to agree to limitations on the authority of a
popish successor. But Shaftesbury was bent on passing the Exclusion
Bill, which excluded James from the throne and substituted the King's
illegitimate son, Monmouth. Here he made a fatal blunder because he
alienated churchmen who believed in the divine right of kings, all whose
sense of decency was outraged by the prospect of a bastard's elevation
to the throne, and the supporters of William of Orange, husband of
Mary, the elder daughter of James, and the great opponent of Louis XIV.
Also, when it became obvious that the King would not agree to a change
in the succession, many feared another civil war with all its attendant
dangers of a second military domination. Moreover, the lies of Oates and
his imitators were becoming discredited.
Though a reaction against the Whigs was beginning, propaganda was needed
to disabuse the public of two anxieties--that there was still a danger
that Roman Catholicism might be restored and that the three dissolutions
might foreshadow a return to unparliamentary government such as Charles
I had established from 1629 to 1640, also after three dissolutions. The
royal party was at first on the defensive. Their propaganda began with a
proclamation issued on April 8 and ordered to be read in all churches.
In the proclamation the King posed as the champion of law and order
against a disloyal faction trying to overthrow the constitution. It was
read in churches on April 17 and, according to Luttrell's _Brief
Historical Relation_ (I, 77), "in many places was not very pleasing, but
afforded matter of sport to some persons." Among several replies was one
entitled _A Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend_. Clearly
there was need to answer this pamphlet and to state more fully the case
against the Whigs. This task was undertaken by two of the greatest
writers of English prose--George Savile, then Earl, later Marquis of
Halifax, and John Dryden. Halifax, in the tract lately identified as his
by Hugh Macdonald (Cambridge, 1940), _Observations upon a late
Libel_--though he might scarify an individual opponent like Shaftesbury
or pour ridicule upon a sentence from _A Letter_, set himself the task
of answering the Whig case as a whole. The text he dilated upon was:
"there seemeth to be no other Rule allowed by one sort of Men, than that
they cannot Err, and the King cannot be in the Right." With superb irony
and wit he demonstrated how inconsistent such an attitude was with the
constitution of that day.
Dryden's tract, _His Majesties Declaration Defended_ is, like the one
he is answering, in the form of a letter to a friend who has asked the
writer's opinion of the _Declaration_ and the answer to it. "I shall
obey you the more willingly," Dryden responds, "because I know you are a
lover of the Peace and Quietness of your Country; which the Author of
this seditious Pamphlet, is endeavouring to disturb." He writes to show
the "goodness and equity" of the Prince, because once they are
understood, the faction will lose its power and the well-meaning but
misled crowd will be no longer deceived by "the specious names of
Religion and Liberty." After these introductory paragraphs Dryden began
to reply to the pamphlet point by point. His method is to quote or, more
strictly, partly to quote and partly to paraphrase, a sentence and then
refute its argument. In so doing he is following the method of the
author of _A Letter_. Accordingly, to understand and judge the fairness
of Dryden's refutation, it is well first to read _His Majesties
Declaration_, then _A Letter_, and finally Dryden. The first has not
been reprinted in full but a substantial extract may be found in
Echard's _History of England_ (III, 624-6) and in Arthur Bryant's _The
Letters of Charles II_ (pp. 319-22), the second is available in a not
uncommon folio, _State Tracts: being a Collection of several Treatises
... privately printed in the Reign of K. Charles II_ (1689), and the
third is here reproduced for the first time. After the perusal of these
three tracts, the student may well turn to _Absalom and Achitophel_, and
find instruction in comparing the prose and the verse. He may reach the
conclusion that while both were written to win converts to the royal
cause, the first was designed to weaken the Whig party and the second to
take advantage of a tide that had turned to ruin the Whig leaders. (For
a fuller discussion of the relationship of Dryden's tract and his poem
see the writer's article, "The Conclusion of Dryden's Absalom and
Achitophel" in the _Huntington Library Quarterly_, X (1946-7), 69-82.)
In addition to its historical interest Dryden's tract is a fine specimen
of his masculine, vigorous style so well suited to controversial
writing.
I desire to thank Mr. James M. Osborn, Yale University, for helpful
suggestions in the preparation of this introduction.
This facsimile has been made from the copy in the William Andrews Clark
Memorial Library.
_Godfrey Davies_
_The Huntington Library_
His Majesties
DECLARATION
DEFENDED:
In a _LETTER_ to a Friend.
BEING AN
_ANSWER_
TO A
_Seditious Pamphlet_,
CALLED
_A LETTER from a Person of Quality
to his Friend_:
CONCERNING
The Kings late Declaration touching the Reasons
which moved him to Dissolve
THE TWO LAST
_PARLIAMENTS_
AT
_WESTMINSTER_ and _OXFORD_.
_LONDON:_
Printed for _T. Davies, 1681_.
THE
Kings Declaration
DEFENDED.
Sir,
Since you are pleas'd to require my Opinion of the Kings Declaration,
and the Answer to it, which you write me word was sent you lately, I
shall obey you the more willingly, because I know you are a lover of the
Peace and Quietness of your Country; which the Author of this seditious
Pamphlet, is endeavouring to disturb. Be pleas'd to understand then,
that before the Declaration was yet published, and while it was only the
common news, that such an one there was intended, to justifie the
Dissolution of the two last Parliaments; it was generally agreed by the
heads of the discontented Party, that this Declaration must be answer'd,
and that with all the ingredients of malice which the ablest amongst
them could squeeze into it. Accordingly, upon the first appearance of it
in Print, five several Pens of their _Cabal_ were set to work; and the
product of each having been examin'd, a certain person of Quality
appears to have carried the majority of Votes, and to be chosen like a
new _Matthias_, to succeed in the place of their deceas'd _Judas_.
He seems to be a man cut out to carry on vigorously the designs of the
Phanatique Party, which are manifestly in this Paper, to hinder the
King, from making any good impression on his Subjects, by giving them
all possible satisfaction.
And the reason of this undertaking is manifest, for if once the goodness
and equity of the Prince comes to be truly understood by the People, the
Authority of the Faction is extinguish'd; and the well meaning crowd who
are misled, will no longer gape after the specious names of Religion and
Liberty; much like the folly of the _Jews_, expecting a _Messiah_ still
to come, whose History has been written sixteen hundred years ago.
Thus much in general: I will now confider the Cavils of my Author
against the Declaration.
He tells us, in the first place, _That the Declaration seems to him as a
forerunner of another Parliament to be speedily call'd:_ And indeed to
any man in his right sences, it can seem no other; for 'tis the business
of its three last Paragraphs to inform the People, that no
irregularities in Parliament can make the King out of love with them:
but that he looks upon them as the best means for healing the distempers
of the publick, and for preservation of the Monarchy.
Now if this seems clearly to be the Kings intention, I would ask what
need there was of the late Petition from the City, for another
Parliament; unless they had rather seem to extort it from his Majesty,
than to have it pass for his own gracious action? The truth is, there
were many of the Loyal Party absent at that Common Council: and the
whole strength of the other Faction was united; for it is the common
failing of honest men to trust too much in the goodness of their cause;
and to manage it too negligently. But there is a necessity incumbent on
such as oppose the establish'd Government, to make up with diligence,
what they want in the justice of their undertaking. This was the true
and only reason why the majority of Votes was for the Petition: but if
the business had not been carried by this surprise, My Lord Mayor might
have only been troubled to have carried the Addresses of _Southwark_,
&c. of another nature: without his offering them with one hand, and the
City Petition with the other; like the Childrens play of, This Mill
grinds Pepper and Spice; that Mill grinds Ratts and Mice.
In the next place he informs us, _That if has been long the practice of
the Popish and Arbitrary Party, that the King should call, frequent,
short, and useless Parliaments, tell the Gentry, grown weary of the
great expences of Elections, should sit at home, and trouble themselves
no more but leave the People expos'd to the practices of them, and of
their Party; who if they carry one House of Commons for their turn, will
make us Slaves and Papists by a Law_.
_Popish_ and _Arbitrary_, are words that sound high amongst the
multitude; and all men are branded by those names, who are not for
setting up Fanaticism and a Common-wealth. To call short and useless
Parliaments, can be no intention of the Government; because from such
means the great end of Settlement cannot be expected. But no Physician
can command his Physick to perform the effects for which he has
prescrib'd it: yet if it fail the first or second time, he will not in
prudence lay aside his Art, and despair of his Patient: but reiterate
his Medicines till he effect the cure. For, the King, as he declares
himself, is not willing to have too hard an Opinion of the
Representatives of the Commons, but hopes that time may open their eyes,
and that their next meeting may perfect the Settlement of Church and
State. With what impudence can our Author say, _That an House of Commons
can possibly be so pack'd, as to make us Slaves and Papists by a Law?_
for my part I should as soon suspect they would make themselves
Arbitrary, which God forbid that any Englishman in his right sences
should believe. But this supposition of our Author, is to lay a most
scandalous imputation upon the Gentry of _England_; besides, what it
tacitly insinuates, that the House of Peers and his Majesty, (without
whom it could not pass into a Law,) would suffer it. Yet without such
Artifices, as I said before, the Fanatique cause could not possibly
subsist: fear of Popery and Arbitrary power must be kept up; or the St.
_Georges_ of their side, would have no Dragon to encounter; yet they
will never persuade a reasonable man, that a King, who in his younger
years, when he had all the Temptations of power to pursue such a Design,
yet attempted it not, should now, in the maturity of his Judgment, and
when he sees the manifest aversion of his Subjects to admit of such a
change, undertake a work of so much difficulty, destructive to the
Monarchy, and ruinous to Himself, if it succeeded not; and if it
succeeded, not capable of making him so truly Great as he is by Law
already. If we add to this, his Majesties natural love to Peace and
Quiet, which increases in every man with his years, this ridiculous
supposition will vanish of itself; which is sufficiently exploded by
daily experiments to the contrary. For let the Reign of any of our Kings
be impartially examin'd, and there will be found in none of them so many
examples of Moderation, and keeping close to the Government by Law, as
in his. And instead of swelling the Regal power to a greater height, we
shall here find many gracious priviledges accorded to the Subjects,
without any one advancement of Prerogative.
The next thing material in the Letter, _is the questioning the legality
of the Declaration; which the Author sayes by the new style of_ his
Majesty in Council, _is order'd to be read in all Churches and Chappels
throughout_ England, _And which no doubt the blind obedience of our
Clergy, will see carefully perform'd; yet if it be true, that there is
no Seal, nor Order of Council, but only the Clerks hand to it, they may
be call'd in question as publishers of false news, and invectives
against a third Estate of the Kingdom_.
Since he writes this only upon a supposition, it will be time enough to
answer it, when the supposition is made manifest in all its parts: In
the meantime, let him give me leave to suppose too, that in case it be
true that there be no Seal, yet since it is no Proclamation, but only a
bare Declaration of his Majesty, to inform and satisfie his Subjects, of
the reasons which induc'd him to dissolve the two last Parliaments, a
Seal in this case, is not of absolute necessity: for the King speaks not
here as commanding any thing, but the Printing, publishing and reading.
And 'tis not denyed the meanest Englishman, to vindicate himself in
Print, when he has any aspersion cast upon him. This is manifestly the
case, that the Enemies of the Government, had endeavour'd to insinuate
into the People such Principles, as this Answerer now publishes: and
therefore his Majesty, who is always tender to preserve the affections
of his Subjects, desir'd to lay before them the necessary reasons, which
induc'd him to so unpleasant a thing, as the parting with two successive
Parliaments. And if the Clergy obey him in so just a Design, is this to
be nam'd a blind Obedience! But I wonder why our Author is so eager for
the calling them to account as Accessaries to an Invective against a
third Estate of the Kingdom, while he himself is guilty in almost every
sentence of his discourse of aspersing the King, even in his own Person,
with all the Virulency and Gall imaginable. It appears plainly that an
House of Commons, is that _Leviathan_ which he Adores: that is his
Sovereign in effect, and a third Estate is not only greater than the
other two, but than him who is presiding over the three.
But, though our Author cannot get his own Seditious Pamphlet to be read
in Churches and in Chappels, I dare secure you, he introduces it into
Conventicles, and Coffee-houses of his Faction: besides, his sending it
in Post Letters, to infect the Populace of every County. 'Tis enough,
that this Declaration is evidently the Kings, and the only true
exception, which our Answerer has to it, is that he would deny his
Majesty the power of clearing his intentions to the People: and finds
himself aggriev'd, that his King should satisfie them in spight of
himself and of his party.
The next Paragraph is wholly spent, in giving us to understand, that a
King, of _England_ is no other thing than a Duke of _Venice_; take the
Parallell all along: and you will find it true by only changing of the
names. A Duke of _Venice_ can do no wrong; in Senate he can make no ill
Laws; in Council no ill Orders, in the Treasury can dispose of no
Money, but wisely, and for the interest of the Government, and according
to such proportions as are every way requisite: if otherwise all
Officers are answerable, &c. Which is in effect, to say he can neither
do wrong nor right, nor indeed any thing, _quatenus_ a King. This puts
me in mind of _Sancho Panca_ in his Government of the Island of
_Barataria_, when he was dispos'd to eat or drink, his Physitian stood
up for the People, and snatch'd the dish from him in their right,
because he was a publick person, and therefore the Nation must be Judges
to a dram and scruple what was necessary for the sustenance of the Head
of the Body politique. Oh, but there is a wicked thing call'd the
Militia in their way, and they shew'd they had a moneths mind to it, at
the first breaking out of the Popish Plot. If they could once persuade
his Majesty, to part graciously with that trifle, and with his power of
making War and Peace; and farther, to resign all Offices of Trust, to be
dispos'd by their nomination, their Argument would be an hundred times
more clear: for then it would be evident to all the World, that he could
do nothing. But if they can work him to part with none of these, then
they must content themselves to carry on their new Design beyond Seas:
either of ingaging the _French_ King to fall upon _Flanders_, or
encouraging the States General to lay aside, or privately to cut off the
Prince of _Orange_, or getting a War declared against _England_ and
_France_ conjoyntly: for by that means, either the King can be but a
weak Enemy, and as they will manage matters, he shall be kept so bare of
Money, that Twelve _Holland_ Ships shall block up the River, or he shall
be forced to cast himself upon a House of Commons, and to take Money
upon their Terms, which will sure be as easie, as those of an Usurer to
an Heir in want. These are part of the projects now afoot: and how Loyal
and conscionable they are, let all indifferent persons judge.
In the close of this Paragraph, he falls upon the King for appealing to
the People against their own Representatives. But I would ask him in the
first place, if an Appeal be to be made, to whom can the King Appeal,
but to his People? And if he must justifie his own proceedings to their
whole Body, how can he do it but by blaming their Representatives? I
believe every honest man is sorry, that any such Divisions have been
betwixt the King and his House of Commons. But since there have been,
how could the King complain more modestly, or in terms more expressing
Grief, than Indignation? or what way is left him to obviate the causes
of such complaints for the future, but this gentle admonishment for what
is past?
'Tis easily agreed, he says, (and here I joyn issue with him) _That
there were never more occasions for a Parliament, than were at the
opening of the last, which was held at_ Westminster. But where he
maliciously adds, _never were our Liberties and Properties more in
danger, nor the Protestant Religion more expos'd to an utter extirpation
both at home and abroad_, he shuffles together Truth and Falshood: for
from the greatness of _France_, the danger of the Protestant Religion is
evident; But that our Liberty, Religion, and Property were in danger
from the Government, let him produce the instances of it, that they may
be answer'd; what dangers there were and are from the Antimonarchical
Party, is not my present business to enquire. As for the growing terrour
of the _French_ Monarchy, the greater it is, the more need of supply to
provide against it.
_The Ministers tell us in the Declaration, That they asked of that
Parliament the supporting the Alliances they had made for the
Preservation of the general peace in Christendom, and had desir'd their
advice and assistance for the preservation of_ Tangier: _had recommended
to them, the farther examination of the Plot; and that his Majesty had
offer'd to concurr in any Remedies for the security of the Protestant
Religion, which might consist with the preserving the Succession of the
Crown, in its due and legal course of descent, but to all this they met
with most unsuitable returns._
Now mark what the Gentleman infers, _That the Ministers well knew, that
their demands of Money for the ends abovesaid, were not to be complyed
with, till his Majesty were pleas'd to change the hands and Councils by
which his Affairs were managed_.--that is, nothing must be given but to
such men in whom they could confide, as if neither the King, nor those
whom he employed were fit any longer to be Trusted. But the supream
power, and the management of all things, must be wholly in their Party,
as it was in _Watt Tyler_, and _Jack Cade_ of famous memory, when they
had got a King into their possession: for this Party, will never think
his Majesty their own, till they have him as safe, as they had his
Father. But if they could compass their Designs, of bringing the same
Gentlemen into play once more, who some years since were at the Helm;
let me ask them, when the Affairs of the Nation were worse manag'd? who
gave the rise to the present greatness of the _French_? or who counsel'd
the dissolution of the Tripple League? 'Tis a miracle to me that the
People should think them good Patriots, only because they are out of
humour with the Court, and in disgrace. I suppose they are far other
principles, than those of Anger and Revenge, which constitute an honest
Statesman. But let men be what they will before, if they once espouse
their Party, let them be touch'd with that Philosophers stone, and they
are turn'd into Gold immediately. Nay, that will do more for them, than
was ever pretended to by Chymistry; for it will raise up the shape of a
worthy Patriot, from the ashes of a Knave. 'Tis a pretty juggle to tell
the King they assist him with Money, when indeed they design only to
give it to themselves; that is, to their own Instruments, which is no
more, than to shift it from one hand into another. It will be a favour
at the long run, if they condescend to acquaint the King, how they
intend to lay out his Treasure. But our Author very roundly tells his
Majesty, _That at present they will give him no supplyes, because they
would be employ'd, to the destruction of his Person, and of the
Protestant Religion, and the inslaving the whole Nation_, to which I
will only add, that of all these matters next and immediately under God,
he and his Party, constitute themselves the supream Judges.
_The Duke of_ York, _the Queen, and the two French Dutchesses are the
great support and protectors of the Popish interest in these Kingdoms_.
How comes it to pass that our Author shuffles the two French Dutchesses
together? of which the one is an _Italian_, the other a _French_ Woman,
and an _English_ Dutchess? Is he grown so purblind, that he cannot
distinguish Friends from Foes? Has he so soon forgotten the memory of
past benefits, that he will not consider one of them as her, to whom all
their applications were so lately made? Is she so quickly become an old
acquaintance, that none of the politick assignations at her Lodgings are
remembred? After this, who will trust the gratitude of a Common-wealth?
or who will blame the Conduct of a silly Court, for being over-reach'd
by the whole _French_ Council, when the able part of the Nation, the
designing heads, the gray wisdom, and the Beaux Garcons, are all foil'd
by a single _French_ Woman, at their own Weapon, dissimulation? for the
other _French_ Dutchess, since I perceive our Author is unacquainted
with her Character, I will give it him; she is one who loves her ease to
that degree, that no advantages of Fortune can bribe her into business.
Let her but have wherewithall to make Merry adays, and to play at Cards
anights, and I dare answer for her, that she will take as little care to
disturb their business, as she takes in the management of her own. But
if you will say that she only affects idleness, and is a grand Intriguer
in her heart, I will only Answer, that I should shew you just such
another as I have describ'd her Grace, amongst the heads of your own
Party: indeed I do not say it is a Woman, but 'tis one who loves a
Woman.
As for the Dutchess of _M._ either she is a very sincere lover of
downright idleness, or she has cousen'd all parts of Christendom, where
she has wandred for these last Ten years. I hope our solid Author will
pardon me this digression; but now we have had our dance, let us to our
serious business.
_While these, and their Creatures are at the Helm, what can we expect
for the security of the Protestant Religion, or what opposition to the
ambitious designs of_ France?
I suppose more reasonably on the other side, that no such persons are at
the Helm, and that what he has assum'd is but precarious. But I retort
upon him, that if some of his Party were the Ministers, the Protestant
Religion would receive but very cold assistance from them, who have none
at all themselves. And for the growth of the _French_ Monarchy, I have
already told you, to whose Counsels we are beholden for it.
_He goes on; you will tell me that the supplyes so given may be
appropriated, to these particular ends of supporting our Alliances, and
the relief of_ Tangier: _And it may be so limited by Act of Parliament,
that it cannot be diverted to other uses. But he answers that Objection
by a Story of_ Monsieur de Sully's _telling of_ H. 4th _of_ France: _let
the States raise the Money, and tye it as they please; when they are
dissolved, you may dispose of it as you please_.
All this is to confirm his first unalterable principle, that the King
must be sure to finger nothing; but be us'd as Fishers do their
Cormorant, have his mouth left open, to swallow the prey for them, but
his throat gagg'd that nothing may go down. Let them bring this to pass,
and afterwards they will not need to take away his Prerogative of making
War: He must do that at his own peril, and be sent to fight his Enemies
with his hands bound behind him. But what if he thinks not their Party
fit to be intrusted, least they should employ it against his Person? why
then, as he told you _they will give him nothing_. Now whose will be the
fault in common reason, if the Allyances be not supported, and _Tangier_
not relieved? If they will give him nothing, before they bring him to a
necessity of taking it upon their terms, asmuch as in them lyes they
dissolve the Government: and the Interest of the Nation abroad must be
left in the Suds, till they have destroy'd the Monarchy at home. But
since God, and the Laws have put the disposing of the Treasury into his
Majesties hands, it may satisfie any reasonable _Englishman_, that the
same Laws have provided for the mispending of the Treasury, by calling
the publick Officers into question for it before the Parliament. For God
be thanked we have a House of Commons, who will be sure, never to forgoe
the least tittle of their Priviledges, and not be so meal-mouth'd as the
States of _France_, of whom neither Monsieur _Sully_, nor any of his
Successors, have never had any cause of apprehension. But since the
wisdom of our Ancestors have thought this Provision sufficient for our
security, What has his present Majesty deserv'd from his Subjects, that
he should be made a Minor at no less than fifty years of age? or that
his House of Commons should Fetter him beyond any of his Predecessors?
_where the Interest goes, you will say, there goes the power_. But the
most ingenious of your Authors, I mean _Plato Redivivus,_ broaches no
such principle as that you should force this Prerogative from the King,
by undue courses. The best use which can be made of all, is rather to
support the Monarchy, than to have it fall upon your Heads. If indeed
there were any reasonable fear of an Arbitrary Government, the adverse
Party had somewhat to alledge in their defence of not supplying it; but
it is not only evident, that the Kings temper is wholly averse from any
such Design, but also demonstrable, that if all his Council, were such
as this man most falsely suggests them to be, yet the notion of an
absolute power in the Prince is wholly impracticable, not only in this
Age, but for ought any wise man can foresee, at any time hereafter. 'Tis
plain, that the King has reduc'd himself already to live more like a
private Gentleman than a Prince; and since he can content himself in
that condition, 'tis as plain, that the supplies which he demands are
only for the service of the publick, and not for his own maintenance.
Monsieur _de Sully_ might give what Council he thought convenient for
_Henry_ the Fourth, who was then designing that Arbitrary power, which
his Successors have since compass'd, to the ruine of the Subjects
liberty in _France_; but I appeal to the Consciences of those men, who
are most averse to the present Government, if they think our King would
put his Peace and Quiet at this time of day, upon so desperate an issue.
What the necessities, which they are driving him into, may make him part
with on the other hand, I know not. But how can they answer it to our
Posterity, that for private Picques, self Interest, and causeless
jealousies, they would destroy the foundation of so excellent a
Government, which is the admiration and envy of all _Europe_?
_The rest of my Authors Paragraph, is only laying more load upon the
Ministers, and telling us, that if a sum of Money sufficient for those
ends were given, while they were Managers of Affairs, it would be only
to set them free from any apprehensions of account to any future
Parliament_. But this Argument having only the imaginary fear of an
Arbitrary power for its foundation, is already answer'd, he adds in the
close of it, _That the Prince has a cheap bargain, who gives Paper-Laws
in exchange of Money and Power. Bargains, he tells us, there have always
been, and always will be, betwixt Prince and People, because it is in
the Constitution of our Goverment, and the chief dependance of our Kings
is in the love and liberality of their People_.
Our present King, I acknowledge has often found it so; though no thanks
I suppose to this Gentleman and his Party. But though he cry down Paper
and Parchment at this Rate, they are the best Evidence he can have for
his Estate, and his friends the Lawyers will advise him to speak with
less contempt of those Commodities. If Laws avail the Subject nothing,
our Ancestors have made many a bad Bargain for us. Yet I can instance to
him one Paper, namely, that of the _Habeas Corpus_ bill; for which the
House of Commons would have been content to have given a Million of good
_English_ money, and which they had Gratis from his Majesty. 'Tis true,
they boast they got it by a Trick; but if the Clerk of the Parliament
had been bidden to forget it, their Trick of telling Noses might have
fail'd them. Therefore let us do right on all sides: The Nation is
oblig'd both to the House of Commons for asking it, and more especially
to his Majesty, for granting it so freely.
_But what can we think of his next Axiome, that it was never known that
Laws signified any thing to a People, who had not the sole guard of
their own Prince, Government and Laws?_
Here all our Fore-fathers are Arraign'd at once for trusting the
Executive power of the Laws in their Princes hands. And yet you see the
Government has made a shift to shuffle on for so many hundred years
together, under this miserable oppression; and no man so wise in so many
ages to find out, that _Magna Charta_ was to no purpose, while there was
a King. I confess in Countreys, where the Monarck governs absolutely,
and the Law is either his Will, or depending on it, this noble maxim
might take place; But since we are neither _Turks_, _Russians_, nor
_Frenchmen_, to affirm that in our Countrey, in a Monarchy of so
temperate and wholsom a Constitution, Laws are of no validity, because
they are not in the disposition of the People, plainly infers that no
Government but that of a Common-wealth can preserve our Liberties and
Priviledges: for though the Title of a Prince be allow'd to continue,
yet if the People must have the sole guard and Government of him and of
the Laws, 'tis but facing an whole hand of Trumps, with an insignificant
King of another sute. And which is worst of all, if this be true, there
can be no Rebellion, for then the People is the supream power. And if
the Representatives of the Commons shall Jarr with the other two
Estates, and with the King, it would be no Rebellion to adhere to them in
that War: to which I know that every Republican who reads this, must of
necessity Answer, _No more it would not_. Then farewell the Good Act of
Parliament, which makes it Treason to Levy Arms against the present King,
upon any pretences whatsoever. For if this be a Right of Nature, and
consequently never to be Resign'd, there never has been, nor ever can be
any pact betwixt King and People, and Mr. _Hobbs_ would tell us, _That we
are still in a state of War_.
_The next thing our Author would establish, is, That there is nothing in
Nature or in Story so ridiculous, as the management of the Ministers, in
the Examination of the Popish Plot. Which being prov'd by_ Coleman's
_and others Letters, and by both Houses by declaring the King's Life to
be in danger_, &c. _Yet they have persuaded the King to believe nothing
of this danger; but to apprehend the Plot to be extreamly improv'd, if
not wholly contriv'd by the Presbyterians. And to think it more his
concernment to have an end of all; then to have it search'd to the
bottom: and that this was the true reason, why four Parliaments, during
the Examination of the Plot have been dissolv'd:_
Reasonable People will conclude, that his Majesty and his Ministers have
proceeded, not ridiculously, but with all that caution which became
them. For in the first heat and vehemence of the Plot, the Avenues of
_White-Hall_ were more strictly Guarded: His Majesty abstaining from
Places of publick Entertainment, and the Ministers taking all necessary
Care in Council, both to discover Conspiracies and to prevent them. So,
that simply considered, the Popish Plot has nothing to do with the
Dissolution of Four Parliaments. But the Use which has been made of it by
the House of Commons to Dis-inherit the Duke, to deny the King
Supplies, and to make some Votes, which the King declares to be
illegal, are the real and plain occasions of dissolving those
Parliaments. 'Tis only affirm'd, but never will be prov'd by this
Author, that the King or his Ministers have ever been desirous to stifle
the Plot, and not to have it search'd into the bottom. For to what end
has his Majesty so often offer'd the Popish Lords to be brought to their
Trial, but that their innocence or guilt, and consequently, that of the
whole party might be made manifest? Or why, after the execution of the
Lord _Stafford_, did the House of Commons stop at the other Lords, and
not proceed to try them in their turns? Did his Majesty stifle the Plot
when he offered them, or did they refuse to sound the depth of it, when
they would not touch upon them? If it were for want of Witnesses, which
is all that can be said, the case is deplorable on the part of the
accused; who can neither be bail'd, because impeach'd in Parliament, nor
admitted to be tryed, for fear they should be acquitted for want of
evidence. I do not doubt but his Majesty, after having done what in him
lies for the utmost discovery of the Plot, both by frequent
Proclamations of Indemnity, and Reward, to such as would come in, and
discover more, and by several others too long to repeat, is desirous
(for what good man is not?) that his care and trouble might be over. But
I am much deceiv'd, if the Antimonarchical Party be of the same
opinion; or that they desire the Plot should be either wholly
discover'd, or fully ended. For 'tis evidently their Interest to keep it
on foot, as long as possibly they can; and to give it hot water, as
often as 'tis dying; for while they are in possession of this Jewel,
they make themselves masters of the people. For this very reason I have
often said, even from the beginning of the Discovery, that the
Presbyterians would never let it go out of their hands, but manage it to
the last inch upon a Save-all. And that if ever they had tryed one Lord,
they would value themselves upon that Conquest, as long as ever it would
last with the Populace: but whatever came on't, be sure to leave a Nest
Egg in the _Tower_: And since I doubt not, but what so mean a Judge as I
am could so easily discover, could not possibly escape the vigilancy of
those who are at the Helm; I am apt to think, that his Majesty saw at
least as great a danger arising to him from the discontented spirits of
the popular Faction, as from the Papists. For is it not plain, that ever
since the beginning of the Plot, they have been lopping off from the
Crown whatever part of the Prerogative they could reach? and incroaching
into Soveraignty and Arbitrary Power themselves, while they seem'd to
fear it from the King? How then could his Majesty be blam'd, if he were
forc'd to dissolve those Parliaments, which instead of giving him
relief, made their Advantages upon his Distresses; and while they
pretended a care of his Person on the one hand, were plucking at his
Scepter with the other?
After this, the Pamphleteer gives us a long Bead-roll of _Dangerfield's_
Plot, Captain _Ely_, young _Tongue_, _Fitz-Gerard_ and Mr. _Ray_, rails
at some, and commends others as far as his skill in Hyperbole will carry
him. Which all put together, amounts to no more than only this, that he
whom they called Rogue before, when he comes into their party, pays his
Garnish, and is adopted into the name of an honest man. Thus _Ray_ was
no Villain, when he accus'd Colonel _Sackvile_, before the House of
Commons; but when he failed of the reward of godliness at their hands,
and from a Wig became a tearing Tory in new Cloaths, our Author puts him
upon the File of Rogues, with this brand, _Than whom a more notorious
and known Villian lives not_.
The next thing be falls upon, is the Succession: which the King
declares, _He will have preserved in its due descent_. Now our Author
despairing, it seems, that an Exclusion should pass by Bill, urges,
_That the Right of Nature and Nations will impower Subjects to deliver a
Protestant Kingdom from a Popish King_. The Law of Nations, is so
undoubtedly, against him, that I am sure he dares not stick to that
Plea: but will be forc'd to reply, that the Civil Law was made in favour
of Monarchy: why then did he appeal to it? And for the Law of Nature, I
know not what it has to do with Protestants or Papists, except he can
prove that the English Nation is naturally Protestant; and then I would
enquire of him what Countrymen our Fore-fathers were? But if he means by
the Law of Nature, self-preservation and defence; even that neither will
look but a squint upon Religion; for a man of any Religion, and a man of
no Religion, are equally bound to preserve their lives. But I answer
positively to what he would be at; that the Law of self-preservation
impowers not a Subject to rise in Arms against his Soveraign, of another
Religion, upon supposition of what he may do in his prejudice hereafter:
for, since it is impossible that a moral certainty should be made out of
a future contingency, and consequently, that the Soveraign may not
extend his Power to the prejudice of any mans Liberty or Religion: The
probability (which is the worst that they can put it) is not enough to
absolve a Subject who rises in Arms, from Rebellion, _in foro
Conscientiae_. We read of a divine Command to obey Superior Powers: and
the Duke will lawfully be such, no Bill of Exclusion having past against
him in his Brother's life: Besides this, we have the Examples of
Primitive Christians, even under Heathen Emperors, always suffering, yet
never taking up Arms, during ten Persecutions. But we have no Text, no
Primitive Example encouraging us to rebel against a Christian Prince,
tho of a different Perswasion. And to say there were then no Christian
Princes when the New Testament was written, will avail our Author
little; for the Argument is a _Fortiori_: if it be unlawful to rebel
against a Heathen Emperor, then much more against a Christian King. The
Corollary is this, and every unbiassed sober man will subscribe to it,
that since we cannot pry into the secret Decrees of God, for the
knowledge of future Events, we ought to rely upon his Providence, for
the Succession; without either plunging our present King into
necessities, for what may never happen; or refusing our obedience to one
hereafter, who in the course of nature may succeed him. One, who if he
had the will, could never have the power to settle Popery in _England_,
or to bring in Arbitrary Government.
_But the Monarchy will not be destroyed, and the Protestant Religion
will be preserved, if we may have a Protestant Successor_.
If his party had thought, that this had been a true Expedient, I am
confident it had been mentioned in the last Parliament at _Westminster_.
But there, _altum silentium_ not one word of it. Was it because the
Machine was not then in readiness to move! and that the Exclusion must
first pass? or more truly was it ever intended to be urged? I am not
ashamed to say, that I particularly honour the Duke of _Monmouth_: but
whether his nomination to succeed, would, at the bottom be pleasing to
the Heads of his Cabal, I somewhat doubt. To keep him fast to them by
some remote hopes of it, may be no ill Policy. To have him in a
readiness to head an Army, in case it should please God the King should
die before the Duke, is the design; and then perhaps he has reason to
expect more from a Chance Game, than from the real desires of his party
to exalt him to a Throne. But 'tis neither to be imagined, that a Prince
of his Spirit, after the gaining of a Crown, would be managed by those
who helped him to it, let his ingagements and promises be never so
strong before, neither that he would be confin'd in the narrow compass
of a Curtail'd Mungril Monarchy, half Common-wealth. Conquerors are not
easily to be curbed. And it is yet harder to conceive, that his
pretended Friends, even design him so much as that. At present, 'tis
true, their mutual necessities keep them fast together; and all the
several Fanatick Books fall in, to enlarge the common stream: But
suppose the business compassed, as they design'd it, how many, and how
contradicting Interests are there to be satisfied! Every Sect of High
Shooes would then be uppermost; and not one of them endure the
toleration of another. And amongst them all, what will become of those
fine Speculative Wits, who drew the Plan of this new Government, and who
overthrew the old? For their comfort, the Saints will then account them
Atheists, and discard them. Or they will plead each of them their
particular Merits, till they quarrel about the Dividend. And, the
Protestant Successor himself, if he be not wholly governed by the
prevailing party, will first be declared no Protestant; and next, no
Successor. This is dealing sincerely with him, which _Plato Redivivus_
does not: for all the bustle he makes concerning the Duke of _M._
proceeds from a Commonwealth Principle: he is afraid at the bottom to
have him at the Head of the party, lest he should turn the absolute
Republick, now designing, into an arbitrary Monarchy.
The next thing he exposes, is the project communicated at _Oxford_, by a
worthy Gentleman since deceased. But since he avowed himself, that it
was but a rough draught, our Author might have paid more respect to his
memory, than to endeavour to render it ridiculous. But let us see how he
mends the matter in his own which follows.
_If the Duke were only banished, during life, and the Administration put
into the hands of Protestants, that would establish an unnatural War of
Expediency, against an avowed Right and Title. But on the other hand
exclude the Duke, and all other Popish Successors, and put down all
those Guards are now so illegally kept up, and banish the Papists, where
can be the danger of a War, in a Nation unanimous_?