James, after his defeat on the banks of the Boyne, did not relinquish
the hope of recovering his crown. In 1692, amidst preparations for a
descent on the shores of England, he issued a Declaration, in which
he promised to maintain the rights of the Established Church; but as
for his past conduct, he had nothing to retract, nothing to deplore;
and as to his future course, he held out no hopes that he would rule
otherwise than he had been doing. Not only were all who should resist
his new attempt to expect his vengeance, but whole classes of persons,
amounting to some thousands, who had incurred his displeasure, were
threatened with punishment. High in the list of culprits excluded from
mercy, stood Tillotson and Burnet. Such a manifesto, of course, did
the Exile’s cause more harm than good; and, therefore, in 1693, he
reluctantly published another, pitched in a different key, promising
an amnesty to those who would submit, and to all his subjects the
restoration of Parliaments, the preservation of the Test Act, and a
limitation of the dispensing power. These concessions were as tardy and
ineffectual as they were insincere. “After all,” said one who was in
the confidence of James, “the object of this Declaration is only to get
us back to England. We shall fight the battle of the Catholics with
much greater advantage at Whitehall than at St. Germains.”[275]
[Sidenote: 1693.]
Within the gloomy courts and chambers of the old Palace of St.
Germains--which in melancholy stateliness furnishes such a contrast
to the cheerful prospect from its windows--James, with his Court of
blinded partizans and his crowds of Jesuit priests, was aiming to
convert certain English Protestants who had followed his unhappy
fortunes, and was planning his return to the land of his fathers, with
the hope of reconciling an heretical realm to the true Catholic Church.
Schemes of insurrection were contrived before the death of Queen
Mary; then came schemes for assassination. Previous to that period,
the death of William had offered James no augmentation of hopes;
afterwards, to clear off the reigning Prince from the stage seemed an
advantageous step. That James originated any plot for the murder of his
son-in-law cannot be proved, and ought not to be believed; nor can it
be shown that he expressly sanctioned anything of the kind; but it can
scarcely be questioned that he knew and connived at what was going on.
Insurrection and assassination plots together opened up vistas into
which the refugees at St. Germains wistfully peered, as they laid their
heads together, and talked over the business in retired corners of the
shaded alleys, or in secret nooks of the rambling palace galleries. A
hundred priests, it is said, were to attend the anointed King in his
expedition, carrying precious relics as pledges of victory--including
the image of St. Victor, of which the miraculous virtue upon infidels
and heretics had been proved, when it was sent as a present to France
from the Queen of Poland. So confident of success were the plotters,
that they talked of taking debentures on English estates, soon to
fall into their hands; also pieces of preferment in Church and State
were allotted to Royal favourites, and Jesuits rejoiced in the idea of
setting up a branch of their order within the spacious precincts of
Chelsea College.[276] These Papists abroad found sympathizing friends
at home amongst the Nonjurors, some of whom were at the time charged
with preaching from texts suggestive of treason and rebellion.
[Sidenote: JACOBITES.]
A correspondence between the Court of St. Germains and the English
Jacobites, ranging from October, 1693, to August, 1694, brought to
light by Macpherson, shows what was going on at that period. “It is
His Majesty’s desire,” said an agent of the Exile, “that the Bishops
and non-swearing Clergy send one or two of their number, especially
one of the Bishops, to him, with all convenient speed, instructed by
the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury [Sancroft], and the rest of the most
considerable of them, to inform His Majesty of the readiness they were
in last year to have joined him at his landing, and to have preached
loyalty and due obedience to the people; and to bring assurances, under
the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury’s hand, that they are in the same
disposition still, and will join His Majesty whenever he shall land.
For the same end, to encourage the people to come into their duty, and
because that there may be some danger in inserting of names, ways of
writing in white must be found out, and the paper sent by the boat,
and not be brought by any of the persons who are sent. This is of the
last importance for the King’s service, and therefore, tho’ difficult
in appearance, must be complied with; and it’s hoped that there may
be no danger, considering how safe all things come. The King is sorry
he cannot put his own hand to this. The King’s affairs depend upon the
punctual doing of what he desires, as you shall know in due time. The
person sent may come safe by Holland. He must likewise bring as good an
account as he can, of the number and names of the non-swearing Clergy;
and likewise, how the non-swearing Clergy stand affected, and what the
King may expect from them, with the best account he can of the state of
the King’s affairs in general.”[277] “You are,” it is said in another
letter, “to let the Bishop of Norwich [Lloyd] know from us, how much we
are pleased with his zeal and faithfulness in our service, to assure
him of our favour, and to return him our most hearty thanks.”[278]
[Sidenote: 1693.]
Assurances were sent from this side the water to the plotters abroad,
full of the spirit of revolt. “His Majesty [James] has likewise for
him, six Protestant Bishops and 600 Ministers who have not taken the
oaths, and almost all the Ministers of the Church of England who have
taken the oaths; that is to say, as one of their Bishops writes to me,
four parts in five are ready to join the King, or to preach in their
churches to stir up the people in his favour,--500 of them having
been ready to join him last year, in order to convince Protestants
that their religion was in no danger, and in order to preach their
sentiments to the inhabitants of the country, thro’ which the King
should pass.”[279]
[Sidenote: JACOBITES.]
Another of these conspirators assured his accomplices abroad, that he
would unite with his regiment a company of Clergymen of the Church
of England, who were determined to serve as volunteers in this
expedition; and he hoped also, by a stratagem, to seize the Prince and
Princess of Orange, and to bring them as prisoners to His Majesty.[280]
Captain Crisp declared that the Bishop of Exeter was entirely in the
King’s interest; and that five parts of seven in the county of Cornwall
were on the same side.[281]
[Sidenote: 1694.]
Sir Theophilus Oglethorpe, Sir John Fenwick, Major-General Sackville,
and several other persons of quality and distinction, maintained that
the persons mentioned, having made an exact inquiry through all the
counties of England, found that the mind of the nation in general
was entirely alienated from the Prince of Orange, by losses suffered
at sea, by heavy taxes, by the interruption of commerce within and
without the kingdom, and by the general disorder occasioned through
a change in the circulation of the coin. It is distinctly affirmed,
“that four parts out of five of the Clergy are disposed to declare for
the King;”[282] and His Majesty was earnestly besought to think of
some way to reconcile the Church party, and those of the Dissenters
who were in Parliament, as it would contribute much to His Majesty’s
service.[283] This was before the death of Mary, afterwards intrigues
did not end in foolish, harmless, and untruthful correspondence. A
conspiracy was formed to attack William when driving over a piece of
bad road between Brentford and Turnham Green, but the conspirators were
betrayed, and the bubble of vengeance immediately burst. Charnock,
Keyes, and King, Roman Catholic Jacobites--who, with others of the
same faith in religion and politics, had been deeply involved in this
affair--suffered for their offence, the last-named declaring at the
foot of the gallows, that what he had done was to be attributed to his
own sinful passions, not to any Roman Catholic doctrine on the subject
of tyrannicide. Two others of higher grade--Sir John Friend, belonging
to the Jacobite nonjuring class, and Sir William Parkyns, a Jacobite,
but a juror too--on the 3rd of April, also suffered death for their
share in the conspiracy. The fate of these knights created immense
excitement, chiefly on account of a circumstance which brings their
execution before us. Jeremy Collier has been already mentioned as a
distinguished nonjuring Divine, and a great sensation was produced in
the vast crowds round the fatal tree by the sight of this clergyman--in
company with two others less known, named Cook and Snatt--performing
some peculiar religious rites at the last moment of the culprits’
lives. The three Divines were observed in the cart, not only praying
with the unhappy men, but laying hands upon them as they knelt
down--Collier solemnly pronouncing over them the form of absolution,
prescribed in the Visitation of the Sick. A paper, professedly written
by Friend, and delivered to the Sheriff, contained a prayer for King
James’ restoration, and stated that the writer was a member of the
Church, “though,” he adds, “a most unworthy and unprofitable part of it
(meaning the nonjuring part), which suffers so much at present for a
strict adherence to the laws and Christian principles.
For this I suffer, and for this I die.”[284]
[Sidenote: JACOBITES.]
People were astonished at the strange absolution performed. Multitudes
more who heard of it shared in the wonder, and the circulation of the
paper increased the excitement. To all but the most obstinate, the
administering of absolution under the circumstances seemed like an
act of sympathy with civil treason, and a gross perversion of Church
formularies. London presently rose in a state of high commotion. The
Tyburn affair was in everybody’s mouth, and broadsides and pamphlets
bearing upon it were in everybody’s hands. The public authorities
interfered, and at once seized Cook and Snatt. Collier eluded their
search; and in some garret, cellar, or other out-of-the-way place,
wrote a defence of what he had done. He had, he said, been sent for
to Newgate; Sir William Parkyns had begged that the absolution of the
Church might be pronounced over him in his last moments. Collier had
been refused admittance to the prisoner in his cell on the day of
execution, and so he went to Tyburn to pronounce absolution there. He
used a form in the Prayer-Book; and as to the imposition of hands,
complained of as an innovation, he concluded that it was a very
ancient, and, at least, a very innocent ceremony.[285]
The Bishops, considering that a scandal had been brought upon the
Church, published a declaration condemnatory both of the culprits’
papers and the Clergymen’s conduct. The papers they charged with making
a favourable mention of so foul a thing as the assassination of His
Majesty; and the Clergymen’s conduct they denounced as insolent, and
without precedent either in the English Church or in any other.[286]
All the Bishops in London signed this document, including Crew of
Durham, and Sprat of Rochester, who, from their past career, were still
suspected of Jacobite tendencies. Collier, whose boldness equalled his
learning, returned to the charge, and from the depths of his obscurity
re-proclaimed the doctrine of the imposition of hands as scriptural,
and consonant with patristic teaching. He also pleaded on its behalf,
in such a case as the one in question, no less a precedent than the
conduct of Bishop Sanderson, oddly enough putting the Prelate in the
place of the traitor under the fatal beam. “This eminent casuist,”
says Collier, “about a day before his death, desired his chaplain, Mr.
Pullin, to give him absolution; and at his performing that office, he
pulled off his cap that Mr. Pullin might lay his hand upon his bare
head.”[287]
[Sidenote: 1696.]
Collier was the leading spirit in this transaction, and he willingly
accepted the chief responsibility; yet he continued to hide himself,
and finally escaped the constable’s clutches. His two companions, after
a true Bill had been found against them by the Grand Jury of Middlesex,
were set at liberty; and it is a question whether they could have been
legally convicted of the commission of any crime against the law of the
land--for absolution at the point of death, by the imposition of hands,
whatever might be thought of it in a religious point of view, could not
be regarded as a political offence; and absolving such men, although
it looked like sympathy in their enterprise, could scarcely bring the
absolvers within the compass of the statute of treason.
Another conspirator’s name gathered round it ecclesiastical
complications. Sir John Fenwick, an active person amongst the numerous
plotters against William, fell into the hands of justice in the month
of June. A letter, from the Duke of Shrewsbury to William III.,
indicates what thoughts were entertained of this conspirator, and of
the views of certain people in France at that juncture.
[Sidenote: JACOBITES.]
“I am not acquainted with the particulars my Lord Steward has sent your
Majesty from Sir John Fenwick; he is generally reputed a fearful man,
and though now he may not offer to say all, yet beginning to treat is
no contradiction to that character. I am confident he knows what, if
he will discover, may be much more valuable than his life. If he were
well managed, possibly he might lay open a scene that would facilitate
the business the next winter, which, without some such miracle, I doubt
will be difficult enough.
“An acquaintance of mine saw a fresh letter to my Lady Walgrave, from
my Lord Galmoy, at St. Germains, who I think is her husband, where he
says he has never been credulous in the hopes of King James’ coming;
but that now he is well assured, it will be attempted the end of this
year, and with good appearance of success. The same person saw another
letter from another hand, they would not say from whom, but from one
more likely to know than the former, and spoke in the same language,
but with more assurance.”[288]
Fenwick, after his capture, made revelations, as Shrewsbury supposed
him not unlikely to do; but, to the great surprise and indignation of
the latter, he learnt before long, that the cunning conspirator had
woven a story, by which he had contrived to bring the Duke himself into
suspicion. The fact is, that for a long time after the Revolution,
things were said and done--whispered, insinuated, listened to, and
winked at--which bore an ugly look in the eyes of honest people; and
it is wonderful in what a perilous position the frail, eagle-faced
champion of constitutional rights and of European Protestantism stood
for years after he had accepted the British crown. True, some men were
accused without good reason, but to many cases the adage applied,
“Where there is smoke there is fire.”[289]
[Sidenote: 1696.]
Charles, Earl of Middleton, took an active part in Jacobite intrigues,
and he is worth notice here as an example of Jacobitism in alliance
with Protestantism, or rather in alliance with views anti-Catholic.
He married into a Popish family, but did not adopt their religion.
Indeed, his principles on that score were very loose, although he
knew how, with a clever stroke, to repel the onsets of Jesuitical
sophistry. A priest one day tried to prove to him the doctrine of
Transubstantiation. “Your Lordship,” said he, “believes in the
Trinity;” Middleton stopped him by asking, “Who told you so?” The
priest felt amazed, upon which the Peer added, it was the priest’s
business to prove that his own belief was true, and not to question
another man about his.[290] In one of the Earl’s furtive missions
to England upon the business of the exiled Prince, he had met with
Shrewsbury, and had evidently tried, in an underhand way, to work his
mind into a Jacobite direction. Fenwick had got hold of this, and had
made the most of it against the Duke, who now occupied the office of
Secretary of State,[291] and had, during William’s absence, discharged,
along with the Archbishop of Canterbury and others, the high function
of a Lord Justice. The letter which Shrewsbury wrote to William is
worth insertion, as illustrative of what went on behind the scenes,
of the scrapes men fell into, of the way they got out of them, of
the generosity and forgiving spirit of the King, and of the rickety
condition of English Protestantism, if it had rested upon nothing
better than the character of politicians.
[Sidenote: JACOBITES.]
“I want words,” says Shrewsbury, addressing William, “to express
my surprise at the impudent and unaccountable accusation of Sir
John Fenwick; I will, with all the sincerity imaginable, give
your Majesty an account of the only thing I can recollect, that
should give the least pretence to such an invention, and I am
confident you will judge there are few men in the kingdom, that
have not so far transgressed the law.
“After your Majesty was pleased to allow me to lay down my
employment, it was more than a year before I once saw my Lord
Middleton; then he came and stayed in town awhile, and returned
to the country; but a little before the La Hogue business he
came up again, and upon that alarm, being put in the Tower,
where people were permitted to see him, I visited him as often
as I thought decent for the nearness of our alliance. Upon his
enlargement, one night at supper, when he was pretty well in
drink, he told me he intended to go beyond seas, and asked if I
would command him no service. I then told him by the course he
was taking it would never be in his power to do himself or his
friends service, and if the time should come that he expected,
I looked upon myself as an offender not to be forgiven, and
therefore he should never find me asking it. In the condition
he was then, he seemed shocked at my answer, and it being some
months after before he went, he never mentioned his own going,
or anything else to me, but left a message with my aunt, that he
thought it better to say nothing to me, but that I might depend
upon his good offices upon any occasion, and in the same manner,
he relied upon mine here, and had left me trustee for the small
concern he had in England. I only bowed and told her I should
always be ready to serve her or him or their children.
[Sidenote: 1696.]
“Your Majesty now knows the extent of my crime, and, if I do not
flatter myself, it is not more than a king may forgive.
“I am sure, when I consider with what reason, justice, and
generosity, your Majesty has weighed this man’s information, I
have little cause to apprehend your ill-opinion upon his malice.
I wish it were as easy to answer for the reasonableness of the
generality of the world. When such a base invention shall be
made public, they may perhaps make me incapable of serving you,
but if till now I had had neither interest nor inclination, the
noble and frank manner with which your Majesty has used me upon
this occasion shall ever be owned with all gratitude in my power.
“My Lord Steward being at the Baths, nothing was resolved as to
Sir John Fenwick’s trial till his answer returns.
“I am, with all imaginable submission, your
Majesty’s most faithful, dutiful, and
obedient subject and servant,
“SHREWSBURY.”[292]
Fenwick disclosed divisions amongst the Nonjurors, classifying them as
compounders and non-compounders--the compounders being anxious for
some security from King James, that English religion and liberty would
be preserved in case of his restoration; and the non-compounders being
prepared to cast themselves entirely upon his honour and generosity.
Lloyd, the deprived Bishop of Norwich, adopted the latter view, and
would hear of no terms in a matter of Divine right.[293]
[Sidenote: JACOBITES.]
The Bill for Fenwick’s attainder created much discussion in the House
of Commons. The discussion took a theological turn upon the point of
deficiency of evidence, the testimony of one witness not being backed
by the testimony of a second. Much was said by the opponents of the
attainder, respecting the eternal law of God and man, and of the Holy
Scriptures requiring more witnesses than one to convict a person of a
capital crime. “No man,” it was repeated, “shall be condemned to die
by the mouth of one witness, but by two or three witnesses he shall
suffer.” It was replied, that not the Levitical law, but the law of
England, should be guide in such a case; then, some one rejoined, that
he and those who thought with him, did not wish to base their argument
simply on Scripture, but upon the fact that this law of Moses having
been confirmed by our Saviour in the New Testament, it ought to be
brought into connection with the law of the land.[294] In spite of
attempts made to save Sir John, the Bill passed both Houses. Robert
Nelson interceded with Tenison to plead with the King. “My very good
friend,” returned the Primate, “give me leave to tell you, that you
know not what spirit this man, nor I am of; I wish for his, nor no
man’s blood, but how can I do my duty to God and my King, should I
declare a man innocent; for my not being of the side of the Bill will
convince the world that I think him so, when I am satisfied in my
conscience, not only from Goodman’s evidence, but all the convincing
testimonies in the world, that he is guilty. Laws _ex post facto_
may indeed carry the face of rigour with them, but if ever a law was
necessary this is.”[295]
[Sidenote: 1696.]
An amusing circumstance occurred during the debate. Dr. John Williams,
Hector of St. Mildred’s, Poultry, accepted the Bishopric of Chichester,
and was consecrated at Lambeth, by Tenison and others, the day before
the third reading of the Bill. Rushing into the Bishops’ chamber to
robe himself, he was accosted by the Archbishop, “Brother, brother!
you’ll overheat yourself; what’s the reason of all this pother?”
“Nothing, may it please your Grace,” said he; “but I was fearful lest
the Bill against Sir John Fenwick should be read before I could take
my place in the House.” “Fye, my Lord,” said Tenison; “you might have
spared yourself that labour, since you had not an opportunity of
hearing the merits of the cause at the first and second reading; but
since, as I perceive, you are come to give your vote, pray, brother,
come in along with me, that you may hear it once read, before you do
it.”[296]
After the Bill had passed, efforts were continued on the culprit’s
behalf. His Lady petitioned the House of Lords and the House of
Commons; also she threw herself as a suppliant at William’s feet in
vain. Fenwick delivered a paper, supposed to have been drawn up by
White, the deprived Bishop of Peterborough, in which he did not deny
the facts sworn, but only complained of his attainder as unjust; at
the same time declaring his loyalty to King James and to the Prince
of Wales, but denouncing, with horror, the idea of assassinating
William.[297]
[Sidenote: JACOBITES.]
Fenwick suffered upon Tower Hill the 20th of January, 1697. That wintry
morning, cold with storms, White appeared with him on the scaffold,
not to pronounce absolution or lay on hands, but simply to pray with a
dying man.[298] Commending the King to the Divine protection--meaning
James, but not using his name--Fenwick, as he laid his neck on the
block, cried, “Lord Jesus, receive my soul.” His corpse was buried by
torch-light in St. Martin’s Church.
Others were hanged for treasonable practices, including Cranburne,
who professed himself a member of the Church of England; and
Rookwood and Lowick, Roman Catholics, whose _Jesu Maria_ and
_Paternosters_ are particularly mentioned by the Protestant
narrator of their last end.[299]