king's extravagances, an attempt was made "to reduce the
annual expenditure below the amount of the royal income. ...
But this plan of economy accorded not with the royal
disposition, nor did it offer any prospect of extinguishing
the debt. Charles remembered the promise of pecuniary
assistance from France in the beginning of his reign; and,
though his previous efforts to cultivate the friendship of
Louis had been defeated by an unpropitious course of events,
he resolved to renew the experiment.
{896}
Immediately after the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, Buckingham
opened a negotiation with the duchess of Orleans, the king's
sister, in France, and Charles, in his conversations with the
French resident, apologised for his conduct in forming the
triple alliance, and openly expressed his wish to enter into a
closer union, a more intimate friendship, with Louis. ...
About the end of the year the communications between the two
princes became more open and confidential; French money, or
the promise of French money, was received by the English
ministers; the negotiation began to assume a more regular
form, and the most solemn assurances of secrecy were given,
that their real object might be withheld from the knowledge,
or even the suspicion, of the States. In this stage of the
proceedings Charles received an important communication from
his brother James. Hitherto that prince had been an obedient
and zealous son of the Church of England; but Dr. Heylin's
History of the Reformation had shaken his religious credulity,
and the result of the inquiry was a conviction that it became
his duty to reconcile himself with the Church of Rome. He was
not blind to the dangers to which such a change would expose
him; and he therefore purposed to continue outwardly in
communion with the established church, while he attended at
the Catholic service in private. But, to his surprise, he
learned from Symonds, a Jesuit missionary, that no
dispensation could authorise such duplicity of conduct: a
similar answer was returned to the same question from the
pope; and James immediately took his resolution. He
communicated to the king in private that he was determined to
embrace the Catholic faith; and Charles without hesitation
replied that he was of the same mind, and would consult with
the duke on the subject in the presence of lord Arundell, lord
Arlington, and Arlington's confidential friend, sir Thomas
Clifford. ... The meeting was held in the duke's closet.
Charles, with tears in his eyes, lamented the hardship of
being compelled to profess a religion which he did not
approve, declared his determination to emancipate himself from
this restraint, and requested the opinion of those present, as
to the most eligible means of effecting his purpose with
safety and success. They advised him to communicate his
intention to Louis, and to solicit the powerful aid of that
monarch. Here occurs a very interesting question,--was Charles
sincere or not? ... He was the most accomplished dissembler in
his dominions; nor will it be any injustice to his character
to suspect that his real object was to deceive both his
brother and the king of France. ... Now, however, the secret
negotiation proceeded with greater activity; and lord
Arundell, accompanied by sir Richard Bellings, hastened to the
French court. He solicited from Louis the present of a
considerable sum, to enable the king to suppress any
insurrection which might be provoked by his intended
conversion, and offered the co-operation of England in the
projected invasion of Holland, on the condition of an annual
subsidy during the continuation of hostilities." On the advice
of Louis, Charles postponed, for the time being, his intention
to enter publicly the Romish church and thus provoke a
national revolt; but his proposals were otherwise accepted,
and a secret treaty was concluded at Dover, in May, 1670,
through the agency of Charles' sister, Henrietta, the duchess
of Orleans, who came over for that purpose. "Of this treaty,
... though much was afterwards said, little was certainly
known. All the parties concerned, both the sovereigns and the
negotiators, observed an impenetrable secrecy. What became of
the copy transmitted to France is unknown; its counterpart was
confided to the custody of sir Thomas Clifford, and is still
in the keeping of his descendant, the lord Clifford of
Chudleigh. The principal articles were:
1. That the king of England should publicly profess himself
a Catholic at such time as should appear to him most
expedient, and subsequently to that profession should join
with Louis in a war against the Dutch republic at such time
as the most Christian king should judge proper.
2. That to enable the king of England to suppress any
insurrection which might be occasioned by his conversion,
the king of France should grant him an aid of 2,000,000 of
livres, by two payments, one at the expiration of three
months, the other of six months, after the ratification of
the treaty, and should also assist him with an armed force
of 6,000 men, if ... necessary. ...
4. That if, eventually, any new rights on the Spanish
monarchy should accrue to the king of France, the king of
England should aid him with all his power in the
acquisition of those rights. 5. That both princes should
make war on the united provinces, and that neither should
conclude peace or truce with them without the advice and
consent of his ally.".
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 11, chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11._
_O. Airy,
The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
chapter 16._
_G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 2 (volume 1)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1671.
The Cabal.
"It was remarked that the committee of council, established
for foreign affairs, was entirely changed; and that Prince
Rupert, the Duke of Ormond, Secretary Trevor, and Lord-keeper
Bridgeman, men in whose honour the nation had great
confidence, were never called to any deliberations. The whole
secret was intrusted to five persons, Clifford, Ashley
[afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury], Buckingham, Arlington, and
Lauderdale. These men were known by the appellation of the
Cabal, a word which the initial letters of their names
happened to compose. Never was there a more dangerous ministry
in England, nor one more noted for pernicious counsels."
_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter. 65 (volume 6)._
See, also, CABINET, THE ENGLISH.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.
The Declaration of Indulgence and the Test Act.
"It would have been impossible to obtain the consent of the
party in the Royal Council which represented the old
Presbyterians, of Ashley or Lauderdale or the Duke of
Buckingham, to the Treaty of Dover. But it was possible to
trick them into approval of a war with Holland by playing on
their desire for a toleration of the Nonconformists. The
announcement of the King's Catholicism was therefore deferred.
... His ministers outwitted, it only remained for Charles to
outwit his Parliament. A large subsidy was demanded for the
fleet, under the pretext of upholding the Triple Alliance, and
the subsidy was no sooner granted than the two Houses were
adjourned.
{897}
Fresh supplies were obtained by closing the Exchequer, and
suspending--under Clifford's advice--the payment of either
principal or interest on loans advanced to the public
treasury. The measure spread bankruptcy among half the
goldsmiths of London; but it was followed in 1672 by one yet
more startling--the Declaration of Indulgence. By virtue of
his ecclesiastical powers, the King ordered 'that all manner
of penal laws on matters ecclesiastical against whatever sort
of Nonconformists or recusants should be from that day
suspended,' and gave liberty of public worship to all
dissidents save Catholics, who were allowed to practice their
religion only in private houses. ... The Declaration of
Indulgence was at once followed by a declaration of war
against the Dutch on the part of both England and France. ...
It was necessary in 1673 to appeal to the Commons [for war
supplies], but the Commons met in a mood of angry distrust.
... There was a general suspicion that a plot was on foot for
the establishment of Catholicism and despotism, and that the
war and the Indulgence were parts of the plot. The change of
temper in the Commons was marked by the appearance of what was
from that time called the Country party, with Lords Russell
and Cavendish and Sir William Coventry at its head--a party
which sympathized with the Nonconformists, but looked on it as
its first duty to guard against the designs of the Court. As to
the Declaration of Indulgence, however, all parties in the
House were at one. The Commons resolved 'that penal statutes
in matters ecclesiastical cannot be suspended but by consent
of Parliament,' and refused supplies till the Declaration was
recalled. The King yielded; but the Declaration was no sooner
recalled than a Test Act was passed through both Houses
without opposition, which required from everyone in the civil
and military employment of the State the oaths of allegiance
and supremacy, a declaration against transubstantiation, and a
reception of the sacrament according to the rites of the
Church of England. Clifford at once counseled resistance, and
Buckingham talked flightily about bringing the army to London,
but Arlington saw that all hope of carrying the 'great plan'
through was at an end, and pressed Charles to yield. ...
Charles sullenly gave way. No measure has ever brought about
more startling results. The Duke of York owned himself a
Catholic, and resigned his office as Lord High Admiral. ...
Clifford, too, ... owned to being a Catholic, and ... laid
down his staff of office. Their resignation was followed by
that of hundreds of others in the army and the civil service
of the Crown. ... The resignations were held to have proved
the existence of the dangers which the Test Act had been
passed to meet. From this moment all trust in Charles was at
an end."
_J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 9, section 3._
"It is very true that the [Test Act] pointed only at
Catholics, that it really proposed an anti-Popish test, yet
the construction of it, although it did not exclude from
office such Dissenters as could occasionally conform, did
effectually exclude all who scrupled to do so. Aimed at the
Romanists, it struck the Presbyterians. It is clear that, had
the Nonconformists and the Catholics joined their forces with
those of the Court, in opposing the measure, they might have
defeated it; but the first of these classes for the present
submitted to the inconvenience, from the horror which they
entertained of Popery, hoping, at the same time, that some
relief would be afforded for this personal sacrifice in the
cause of a common Protestantism. Thus the passing of an Act,
which, until a late period, inflicted a social wrong upon two
large sections of the community, is to be attributed to the
course pursued by the very parties whose successors became the
sufferers."
_J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 3, chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 4, chapter 8, and volume 5, chapter 1._
_J. Collier,
Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain,
part 2, book 9 (volume 8)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1674.
Alliance with Louis XIV. of France in war with Holland.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1673.
Loss of New York, retaken by the Dutch.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1674.
Peace with the Dutch.
Treaty of Westminster.
Recovery of New York.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1675-1688.
Concessions to France in Newfoundland.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.
The Popish Plot.
"There was an uneasy feeling in the nation that it was being
betrayed, and just then [August, 1678] a strange story caused
a panic throughout all England. A preacher of low character,
named Titus Oates, who had gone over to the Jesuits, declared
that he knew of a plot among the Catholics to kill the king
and set up a Catholic Government. He brought his tale to a
magistrate, named Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey, and shortly
afterwards [October 17] Godfrey was found murdered in a ditch
near St. Pancras Church. The people thought that the Catholics
had murdered him to hush up the 'Popish plot,' and when
Parliament met a committee was appointed to examine into the
matter. Some papers belonging to a Jesuit named Coleman
alarmed them, and so great was the panic that an Act was
passed shutting out all Catholics, except the Duke of York,
from Parliament. After this no Catholic sat in either House
for a hundred and fifty years. But worse followed. Oates
became popular, and finding tale-bearing successful, he and
other informers went on to swear away the lives of a great
number of innocent Catholics. The most noted of these was Lord
Stafford, an upright and honest peer, who was executed in
1681, declaring his innocence. Charles laughed among his
friends at the whole matter, but let it go on, and
Shaftesbury, who wished to turn out Lord Danby, did all he
could to fan the flame."
_A. B. Buckley,
History of England for Beginners,
chapter 19._
"The capital and the whole nation went mad with hatred and
fear. The penal laws, which had begun to lose something of
their edge, were sharpened anew. Everywhere justices were
busied in searching houses and seizing papers. All the gaols
were filled with Papists. London had the aspect of a city in a
state of siege. The train bands were under arms all night.
Preparations were made for barricading the great
thoroughfares. Patroles marched up and down the streets.
Cannon were planted round Whitehall. No citizen thought
himself safe unless he carried under his coat a small flail
loaded with lead to brain the Popish assassins."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter. 2 (volume 1)._
{898}
"It being expected that printed Bibles would soon become rare,
or locked up in an unknown tongue, many honest people, struck
with the alarm, employed themselves in copying the Bible into
short-hand that they might not be destitute of its
consolations in the hour of calamity. ... It was about the
year 1679 that the famous King's Head Club was formed, so
named from its being held at the King's Head Tavern in Fleet
Street. ... They were terrorists and spread alarm with great
effect. It was at this club that silk armour, pistol proof,
was recommended as a security against assassination at the
hands of the Papists; and the particular kind of
life-preserver of that day, called a Protestant flail, was
introduced."
_G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapter 5 (volume 1)._
"And now commenced, before the courts of justice and the upper
house, a sombre prosecution of the catholic lords Arundel,
Petre, Stafford, Powis, Bellasis, the Jesuits Coleman,
Ireland, Grieve, Pickering, and, in succession, all who were
implicated by the indefatigable denunciations of Titus Oates
and Bedloe. Unhappily, these courts of justice, desiring, in
common with the whole nation, to condemn rather than to
examine, wanted neither elements which might, if strictly
acted upon, establish legal proof of conspiracy against some
of the accused, nor terrible laws to destroy them when found
guilty. And it was here that a spectacle, at first imposing,
became horrible. No friendly voice arose to save those men who
were guilty only of impracticable wishes, of extravagant
conceptions. The king, the duke of York, the French
ambassador, thoroughly acquainted as they were with the real
nature of these imputed crimes, remained silent; they were
thoroughly cowed."
_A. Carrel,
History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
part 1, chapter 4._
"Although, ... upon a review of this truly shocking
transaction, we may be fairly justified ... in imputing to the
greater part of those concerned in it, rather an extraordinary
degree of blind credulity than the deliberate wickedness of
planning and assisting in the perpetration of legal murders;
yet the proceedings on the popish plot must always be
considered as an indelible disgrace upon the English nation,
in which king, parliament, judges, juries, witnesses,
prosecutors, have all their respective, though certainly not
equal, shares."
_C. J. Fox,
History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II.,
introduction, ch._
"In this dreadful scene of wickedness, it is difficult not to
assign the pre-eminence of guilt to Anthony Ashley Cooper,
earl of Shaftesbury. If he did not first contrive, he
certainly availed himself of the revelations of Oates, to work
up the nation to the fury which produced the subsequent
horrors. ... In extenuation of the delusion of the populace,
something may be offered. The defamation of half a century had
made the catholics the objects of protestant odium and
distrust: and these had been increased by the accusation,
artfully and assiduously fomented, of their having been the
authors of the fire of the city of London. The publication,
too, of Coleman's letters, certainly announced a considerable
activity in the catholics to promote the catholic religion;
and contained expressions, easily distorted to the sense, in
which the favourers of the belief of the plot wished them to
be understood. Danby's correspondence, likewise, which had
long been generally known, and was about this time made
public, had discovered that Charles was in the pay of France.
These, with several other circumstances, had inflamed the
imaginations of the public to the very highest pitch. A
dreadful something (and not the less dreadful because its
precise nature was altogether unknown), was generally
apprehended. ... For their supposed part in the plot, ten
laymen and seven priests, one of whom was seventy, another
eighty, years of age, were executed. Seventeen others were
condemned, but not executed. Some died in prison, and some
were pardoned. On the whole body of catholics the laws were
executed with horrible severity."
_C. Butler,
Historical Memoirs of the English Catholics,
chapter 32, section 3 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
chapter 89 (volume 3)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (May).
The Habeas Corpus Act.
"Arbitrary imprisonment is a grievance which, in some degree,
has place in almost every government, except in that of Great
Britain; and our absolute security from it we owe chiefly to
the present Parliament; a merit which makes some atonement for
the faction and violence into which their prejudices had, in
other particulars, betrayed them. The great charter had laid
the foundation of this valuable part of liberty; the petition
of right had renewed and extended it; but some provisions were
still wanting to render it complete, and prevent all evasion
or delay from ministers and judges. The act of habeas corpus,
which passed this session, served these purposes. By this act
it was prohibited to send anyone to a prison beyond sea. No
judge, under severe penalties, must refuse to any prisoner a
writ of habeas corpus, by which the gaoler was directed to
produce in court the body of the prisoner (whence the writ has
its name), and to certify the cause of his detainer and
imprisonment. If the gaol lie within twenty miles of the
judge, the writ must be obeyed in three days; and so
proportionably for greater distances; every prisoner must be
indicted the first term after his commitment, and brought to
trial in the subsequent term. And no man, after being enlarged
by order of court, can be recommitted for the same offence."
_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 67 (volume 6)._
"The older remedies serving as a safeguard against unlawful
imprisonment, were--
1. The writ of Mainprise, ensuring the delivery of the accused
to a friend of the same, who gave security to answer for his
appearance before the court when required, and in token of
such undertaking he held him by the hand ('le prit par le
main').
2. The writ 'De odio et atiâ,' i. e., of hatred and malice,
which, though not abolished, has long since been antiquated.
... It directed the sheriff to make inquisition in the county
court whether the imprisonment proceeded from malice or not.
...
3. The writ 'De homine replegiando,' or replevying a man, that
is, delivering him out on security to answer what may be
objected against him.
A writ is, originally, a royal writing,
either an open patent addressed to all to whom it may come,
and issued under the great seal; or, 'litteræ clausæ,' a
sealed letter addressed to a particular person; such writs
were prepared in the royal courts or in the Court of Chancery.
The most usual instrument of protection, however, against
arbitrary imprisonment is the writ of 'Habeas corpus,' so
called from its beginning with the words, 'Habeas corpus ad
subjiciendum,' which, on account of its universal application
and the security it affords, has, insensibly, taken precedence
of all others.
{899}
This is an old writ of the common law, and must be prayed for
in any of the Superior courts of common law. ... But this writ
. . . proved but a feeble, or rather wholly ineffectual
protection against the arbitrary power of the sovereign. The
right of an English subject to a writ of habeas corpus, and to
a release from imprisonment unless sufficient cause be shown
for his detention, was fully canvassed in the first years of
the reign of Charles I. ... The parliament endeavoured to
prevent such arbitrary imprisonment by passing the 'Petition
of Right,' which enacted that no freeman, in any such manner
... should be imprisoned or detained. Even this act was found
unavailing against the malevolent interpretations put by the
judges; hence the 16 Charles I., c. 10, was passed, which
enacts, that when any person is restrained of his liberty by
the king in person, or by the Privy Council, or any member
thereof, he shall, on demand of his counsel, have a writ of
habeas corpus, and, three days after the writ, shall be
brought before the court to determine whether there is ground
for further imprisonment, for bail, or for his release.
Notwithstanding these provisions, the immunity of English
subjects from arbitrary detention was not ultimately
established in full practical efficiency until the passing of
the statute of Charles II., commonly called the 'Habeas Corpus
Act.'"
_E. Fischel,
The English Constitution,
book 1, chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_Sir W. Blackstone,
Commentaries on the Laws of England,
book 3, chapter 8._
_H. J. Stephen,
Commentaries,
book 5, chapter 12, section 5 (volume 4)._
The following is the text of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679:
I. Whereas great Delays have been used by Sheriffs, Gaolers
and other Officers, to whose Custody any of the King's
Subjects have been committed, for criminal or supposed
criminal Matters, in making Returns of Writs of Habeas Corpus
to them directed, by standing out an Alias and Pluries Habeas
Corpus, and sometimes more, and by other Shifts, to avoid
their yielding Obedience to such Writs, contrary to their
Duty, and the known Laws of the Land, whereby many of the
King's Subjects have been, and hereafter may be long detained
in Prison, in such cases where by Law they are bailable, to
their great Charges and Vexation.