_Dissatisfaction increases._--A joy so excessive and indiscriminating

had accompanied the king's restoration, that no prudence or virtue in

his government could have averted that reaction of popular sentiment,

which inevitably follows the disappointment of unreasonable hope.

Those who lay their account upon blessings, which no course of

political administration can bestow, live, according to the poet's

comparison, like the sick man, perpetually changing posture in search

of the rest which nature denies; the dupes of successive revolutions,

sanguine as children with the novelties of politics, a new

constitution, a new sovereign, a new minister, and as angry with the

playthings when they fall short of their desires. What then was the

discontent that must have ensued upon the restoration of Charles II.?

The neglected cavalier, the persecuted presbyterian, the disbanded

officer, had each his grievance; and felt that he was either in a

worse situation than he had formerly been, or at least than he had

expected to be. Though there were not the violent acts of military

power which had struck every man's eyes under Cromwell, it cannot be

said that personal liberty was secure, or that the magistrates had not

considerable power of oppression, and that pretty unsparingly

exercised towards those suspected of disaffection. The religious

persecution was not only far more severe than it was ever during the

commonwealth, but perhaps more extensively felt than under Charles I.

Though the monthly assessments for the support of the army ceased soon

after the restoration, several large grants were made by parliament,

especially during the Dutch war; and it appears, that in the first

seven years of Charles II. the nation paid a greater sum in taxes than

in any preceding period of the same duration. If then the people

compared the national fruits of their expenditure, what a contrast

they found, how deplorable a falling off in public honour and dignity

since the days of the magnanimous usurper![618] They saw with

indignation, that Dunkirk, acquired by Cromwell, had been chaffered

away by Charles (a transaction justifiable perhaps on the mere balance

of profit and loss, but certainly derogatory to the pride of a great

nation); that a war, needlessly commenced, had been carried on with

much display of bravery in our seamen and their commanders, but no

sort of good conduct in the government; and that a petty northern

potentate, who would have trembled at the name of the commonwealth,

had broken his faith towards us out of mere contempt of our

inefficiency.

_Private life of the king._--These discontents were heightened by the

private conduct of Charles, if the life of a king can in any sense be

private, by a dissoluteness and contempt of moral opinion, which a

nation, still in the main grave and religious, could not endure. The

austere character of the last king had repressed to a considerable

degree the common vices of a court which had gone to a scandalous

excess under James. But the cavaliers in general affected a profligacy

of manners, as their distinction from the fanatical party, which

gained ground among those who followed the king's fortunes in exile,

and became more flagrant after the restoration. Anecdotes of court

excesses, which required not the aid of exaggeration, were in daily

circulation through the coffee-houses; those who cared least about the

vice, not failing to inveigh against the scandal. It is in the nature

of a limited monarchy that men should censure very freely the private

likes of their princes, as being more exempt from that immoral

servility which blinds itself to the distinctions of right and wrong

in elevated rank. And as a voluptuous court will always appear

prodigal, because all expense in vice is needless, they had the

mortification of believing that the public revenues were wasted on the

vilest associates of the king's debauchery. We are however much

indebted to the memory of Barbara, Duchess of Cleveland, Louisa,

Duchess of Portsmouth, and Mrs. Eleanor Gwyn. We owe a tribute of

gratitude to the Mays, the Killigrews, the Chiffinches, and the

Grammonts. They played a serviceable part in ridding the kingdom of

its besotted loyalty. They saved our forefathers from the

star-chamber, and the high-commission court; they laboured in their

vocation against standing armies and corruption; they pressed forward

the great ultimate security of English freedom, the expulsion of the

house of Stuart.[619]

_Opposition in parliament._--Among the ardent loyalists who formed the

bulk of the present parliament, a certain number of a different class

had been returned, not sufficient of themselves to constitute a very

effective minority, but of considerable importance as a nucleus, round

which the lesser factions that circumstances should produce, might be

gathered. Long sessions, and a long continuance of the same

parliament, have an inevitable tendency to generate a systematic

opposition to the measures of the Crown, which it requires all

vigilance and management to hinder from becoming too powerful. The

sense of personal importance, the desire of occupation in business (a

very characteristic propensity of the English gentry), the various

inducements of private passion and interest, bring forward so many

active spirits, that it was, even in that age, as reasonable to expect

that the ocean should always be tranquil, as that a House of Commons

should continue long to do the king's bidding, with any kind of

unanimity or submission. Nothing can more demonstrate the

incompatibility of the tory scheme, which would place the virtual and

effective, as well as nominal, administration of the executive

government in the sole hands of the Crown, with the existence of a

representative assembly, than the history of this long parliament of

Charles II. None has ever been elected in circumstances so favourable

for the Crown, none ever brought with it such high notions of

prerogative; yet in this assembly a party soon grew up, and gained

strength in every successive year, which the king could neither direct

nor subdue. The methods of bribery, to which the court had largely

recourse, though they certainly diverted some of the measures, and

destroyed the character, of this opposition, proved in the end like

those dangerous medicines which palliate the instant symptoms of a

disease that they aggravate. The leaders of this parliament were, in

general, very corrupt men; but they knew better than to quit the power

which made them worth purchase. Thus the House of Commons matured and

extended those rights of enquiring into and controlling the management

of public affairs, which had caused so much dispute in former times;

and, as the exercise of these functions became more habitual, and

passed with little or no open resistance from the Crown, the people

learned to reckon them unquestionable or even fundamental; and were

prepared for that more perfect settlement of the constitution on a

more republican basis, which took place after the revolution. The

reign of Charles II., though displaying some stretches of arbitrary

power, and threatening a great deal more, was, in fact, the

transitional state between the ancient and modern schemes of the

English constitution; between that course of government where the

executive power, so far as executive, was very little bounded except

by the laws, and that where it can only be carried on, even within its

own province, by the consent and co-operation, in a great measure, of

the parliament.

_Appropriation of supplies._--The Commons took advantage of the

pressure which the war with Holland brought on the administration, to

establish two very important principles on the basis of their sole

right of taxation. The first of these was the appropriation of

supplies to limited purposes. This indeed was so far from an absolute

novelty, that it found precedents in the reigns of Richard II. and

Henry IV.; a period when the authority of the House of Commons was at

a very high pitch. No subsequent instance, I believe, was on record

till the year 1624, when the last parliament of James I., at the

king's own suggestion, directed their supply for the relief of the

Palatinate to be paid into the hands of commissioners named by

themselves. There were cases of a similar nature in the year 1641,

which, though of course they could no longer be upheld as precedents,

had accustomed the house to the idea that they had something more to

do than simply to grant money, without any security or provision for

its application. In the session of 1665, accordingly, an enormous

supply, as it then appeared, of £1,250,000, after one of double that

amount in the preceding year, having been voted for the Dutch war, Sir

George Downing, one of the tellers of the exchequer, introduced into

the subsidy bill a proviso, that the money raised by virtue of that

act should be applicable only to the purposes of the war.[620]

Clarendon inveighed with fury against this, as an innovation

derogatory to the honour of the Crown; but the king himself, having

listened to some who persuaded him that the money would be advanced

more easily upon this better security for speedy repayment, insisted

that it should not be thrown out.[621] That supplies, granted by

parliament, are only to be expended for particular objects specified

by itself, became, from this time, an undisputed principle, recognised

by frequent and at length constant practice. It drew with it the

necessity of estimates regularly laid before the House of Commons;

and, by exposing the management of the public revenues, has given to

parliament, not only a real and effective control over an essential

branch of the executive administration, but, in some measure, rendered

them partakers in it.[622]

_Commission of public accounts._--It was a consequence of this right

of appropriation, that the House of Commons should be able to satisfy

itself as to the expenditure of their monies in the services for which

they were voted. But they might claim a more extensive function, as

naturally derived from their power of opening and closing the public

purse, that of investigating the wisdom, faithfulness, and economy

with which their grants had been expended. For this too there was some

show of precedents in the ancient days of Henry IV.; but what

undoubtedly had most influence was the recollection, that during the

late civil war, and in the times of the commonwealth, the house had

superintended, through its committees, the whole receipts and issues

of the national treasury. This had not been much practised since the

restoration. But in the year 1666, the large cost and indifferent

success of the Dutch war begetting vehement suspicions, not only of

profuseness but of diversion of the public money from its proper

purposes, the house appointed a committee to inspect the accounts of

the officers of the navy, ordnance, and stores, which were laid before

them, as it appears, by the king's direction. This committee after

some time, having been probably found deficient in powers, and

particularly being incompetent to administer an oath, the house

determined to proceed in a more novel and vigorous manner; and sent up

a bill, nominating commissioners to inspect the public accounts, who

were to possess full powers of enquiry, and to report with respect to

such persons as they should find to have broken their trust. The

immediate object of this enquiry, so far as appears from Lord

Clarendon's mention of it, was rather to discover whether the

treasurers had not issued money without legal warrant than to enter

upon the details of its expenditure. But that minister, bigoted to his

Tory creed of prerogative, thought it the highest presumption for a

parliament to intermeddle with the course of government. He spoke of

this bill as an encroachment and usurpation that had no limits, and

pressed the king to be firm in his resolution never to consent to

it.[623] Nor was the king less averse to a parliamentary commission of

this nature, as well from a jealousy of its interference with his

prerogative, as from a consciousness which Clarendon himself suggests,

that great sums had been issued by his orders, which could not be put

in any public account; that is (for we can give no other

interpretation), that the monies granted for the war, and appropriated

by statute to that service, had been diverted to supply his wasteful

and debauched course of pleasures.[624] It was the suspicion, or

rather private knowledge of this criminal breach of trust, which had

led to the bill in question. But such a slave was Clarendon to his

narrow prepossessions, that he would rather see the dissolute excesses

which he abhorred suck nourishment from that revenue which had been

allotted to maintain the national honour and interests, and which, by

its deficiencies thus aggravated, had caused even in this very year

the navy to be laid up, and the coasts to be left defenceless, than

suffer them to be restrained by the only power to which thoughtless

luxury would submit. He opposed the bill therefore in the House of

Lords, as he confesses, with much of that intemperate warmth which

distinguished him, and with a contempt of the lower house and its

authority, as imprudent in respect to his own interests as it was

unbecoming and unconstitutional. The king prorogued parliament while

the measure was depending; but in hopes to pacify the House of

Commons, promised to issue a commission under the great seal for the

examination of public accountants;[625] an expedient which was not

likely to bring more to light than suited his purpose. But it does not

appear that this royal commission, though actually prepared and

sealed, was ever carried into effect; for in the ensuing session, the

great minister's downfall having occurred in the meantime, the House

of Commons brought forward again their bill, which passed into a law.

It invested the commissioners therein nominated with very extensive

and extraordinary powers, both as to auditing public accounts, and

investigating the frauds that had taken place in the expenditure of

money, and employment of stores. They were to examine upon oath, to

summon inquests if they thought fit, to commit persons disobeying

their orders to prison without bail, to determine finally on the

charge and discharge of all accountants; the barons of the exchequer,

upon a certificate of their judgment, were to issue process for

recovering money to the king's use, as if there had been an immediate

judgment of their own court. Reports were to be made of the

commissioners' proceedings from time to time to the king and to both

houses of parliament. None of the commissioners were members of either

house. The king, as may be supposed, gave way very reluctantly to this

interference with his expenses. It brought to light a great deal of

abuse and misapplication of the public revenues, and contributed

doubtless in no small degree to destroy the house's confidence in the

integrity of government, and to promote a more jealous watchfulness of

the king's designs.[626] At the next meeting of parliament, in October

1669, Sir George Carteret, treasurer of the navy, was expelled the

house for issuing money without legal warrant.

_Decline of Clarendon's power._--Sir Edward Hyde, whose influence had

been almost annihilated in the last years of Charles I. through the

inveterate hatred of the queen and those who surrounded her, acquired

by degrees the entire confidence of the young king, and baffled all

the intrigues of his enemies. Guided by him, in all serious matters,

during the latter years of his exile, Charles followed his counsels

almost implicitly in the difficult crisis of the restoration. The

office of chancellor and the title of Earl of Clarendon were the

proofs of the king's favour; but in effect, through the indolence and

ill-health of Southampton, as well as their mutual friendship, he was

the real minister of the Crown.[627] By the clandestine marriage of

his daughter with the Duke of York, he changed one brother from an

enemy to a sincere and zealous friend, without forfeiting the esteem

and favour of the other. And, though he was wise enough to dread the

invidiousness of such an elevation, yet for several years it by no

means seemed to render his influence less secure.[628]

Both in their characters, however, and turn of thinking, there was so

little conformity between Clarendon and his master, that the

continuance of his ascendancy can only be attributed to the power of

early habit over the most thoughtless tempers. But it rarely happens

that kings do not ultimately shake off these fetters, and release

themselves from the sort of subjection which they feel in acting

always by the same advisers. Charles, acute himself and cool-headed,

could not fail to discover the passions and prejudices of his

minister, even if he had wanted the suggestion of others who, without

reasoning on such broad principles as Clarendon, were perhaps his

superiors in judging of temporary business. He wished too, as is

common, to depreciate a wisdom, and to suspect a virtue, which seemed

to reproach his own vice and folly. Nor had Clarendon spared those

remonstrances against the king's course of life, which are seldom

borne without impatience or resentment. He was strongly suspected by

the king as well as his courtiers (though, according to his own

account, without any reason) of having promoted the marriage of Miss

Stewart with the Duke of Richmond.[629] But above all he stood in the

way of projects, which, though still probably unsettled, were floating

in the king's mind. No one was more zealous to uphold the prerogative

at a height where it must overtop and chill with its shadow the

privileges of the people. No one was more vigilant to limit the

functions of parliament, or more desirous to see them confiding and

submissive. But there were landmarks which he could never be brought

to transgress. He would prepare the road for absolute monarchy, but

not introduce it; he would assist to batter down the walls, but not to

march into the town. His notions of what the English constitution

ought to be, appear evidently to have been derived from the times of

Elizabeth and James I., to which he frequently refers with

approbation. In the history of that age, he found much that could not

be reconciled to any liberal principles of government. But there were

two things which he certainly did not find; a revenue capable of

meeting an extraordinary demand without parliamentary supply, and a

standing army. Hence he took no pains, if he did not even, as is

asserted by Burnet, discourage the proposal of others, to obtain such

a fixed annual revenue for the king on the restoration, as would have

rendered it very rarely necessary to have recourse to parliament,[630]

and did not advise the keeping up any part of the army. That a few

troops were retained, was owing to the Duke of York. Nor did he go the

length that was expected in procuring the repeal of all the laws that

had been enacted in the long parliament.[631]

These omissions sank deep in Charles's heart, especially when he found

that he had to deal with an unmanageable House of Commons, and must

fight the battle for arbitrary power; which might have been achieved,

he thought, without a struggle by his minister. There was still less

hope of obtaining any concurrence from Clarendon in the king's designs

as to religion. Though he does not once hint at it in his writings,

there can be little doubt that he must have suspected his master's

inclinations towards the church of Rome. The Duke of York considered

this as the most likely cause of his remissness in not sufficiently

advancing the prerogative.[632] He was always opposed to the various

schemes of a general indulgence towards popery, not only from his

strongly protestant principles and his dislike of all toleration, but

from a prejudice against the body of the English catholics, whom he

thought to arrogate more on the ground of merit than they could claim.

That interest, so powerful at court, was decidedly hostile to the

chancellor; for the Duke of York, who strictly adhered to him, if he

had not kept his change of religion wholly secret, does not at least

seem to have hitherto formed any avowed connection with the popish

party.[633]

_Loss of the king's favour_--_Coalition against Clarendon_.--This

estrangement of the king's favour is sufficient to account for

Clarendon's loss of power; but his entire ruin was rather accomplished

by a strange coalition of enemies, which his virtues, or his errors

and infirmities, had brought into union. The cavaliers hated him on

account of the act of indemnity, and the presbyterians for that of

uniformity. Yet the latter were not in general so eager in his

prosecution as the others.[634] But he owed great part of the

severity with which he was treated to his own pride and ungovernable

passionateness, by which he had rendered very eminent men in the House

of Commons implacable, and to the language he had used as to the

dignity and privileges of the house itself.[635] A sense of this

eminent person's great talents as well as general integrity and

conscientiousness on the one hand, an indignation at the king's

ingratitude, and the profligate counsels of those who supplanted him,

on the other, have led most writers to overlook his faults in

administration, and to treat all the articles of accusation against

him as frivolous or unsupported. It is doubtless impossible to justify

the charge of high treason, on which he was impeached; but there are

matters that never were or could be disproved; and our own knowledge

enables us to add such grave accusations as must show Clarendon's

unfitness for the government of a free country.[636]

1. _Illegal imprisonments._--It is the fourth article of his

impeachment, that he "had advised and procured divers of his majesty's

subjects to be imprisoned against law, in remote islands, garrisons,

and other places, thereby to prevent them from the benefit of the law,

and to produce precedents for the imprisoning any other of his

majesty's subjects in like manner." This was undoubtedly true. There

was some ground for apprehension on the part of the government from

those bold spirits who had been accustomed to revolutions, and drew

encouragement from the vices of the court and the embarrassments of

the nation. Ludlow and Algernon Sidney, about the year 1665, had

projected an insurrection, the latter soliciting Louis XIV. and the

pensionary of Holland for aid.[637] Many officers of the old army,

Wildman, Creed, and others, suspected, perhaps justly, of such

conspiracies, had been illegally detained in prison for several years,

and only recovered their liberty on Clarendon's dismissal.[638] He had

too much encouraged the hateful race of informers, though he admits

that it had grown a trade by which men got money, and that many were

committed on slight grounds.[639] Thus Colonel Hutchinson died in the

close confinement of a remote prison, far more probably on account of

his share in the death of Charles I., from which the act of indemnity

had discharged him, than any just pretext of treason.[640] It was

difficult to obtain a habeas corpus from some of the judges in this

reign. But to elude that provision by removing men out of the kingdom,

was such an offence against the constitution as may be thought enough

to justify the impeachment of any minister.

2. The first article, and certainly the most momentous, asserts,

"That the Earl of Clarendon hath designed a standing army to be

raised, and to govern the kingdom thereby, and advised the king to

dissolve this present parliament, to lay aside all thoughts of

parliaments for the future, to govern by a military power, and to

maintain the same by free quarter and contribution." This was

prodigiously exaggerated; yet there was some foundation for a part of

it. In the disastrous summer of 1667, when the Dutch fleet had

insulted our coasts, and burned our ships in the Medway, the exchequer

being empty, it was proposed in council to call together immediately

the parliament, which then stood prorogued to a day at the distance of

some months. Clarendon, who feared the hostility of the House of

Commons towards himself, and had pressed the king to dissolve it,

maintained that they could not legally be summoned before the day

fixed; and, with a strange inconsistency, attaching more importance to

the formalities of law than to its essence, advised that the counties

where the troops were quartered should be called upon to send in

provisions, and those where there were no troops to contribute money,

which should be abated out of the next taxes. And he admits that he

might have used the expression of raising contributions, as in the

late civil war. This unguarded and unwarrantable language, thrown out

at the council-table where some of his enemies were sitting, soon

reached the ears of the Commons, and, mingled up with the usual

misrepresentations of faction, was magnified into a charge of high

treason.[641]

3. _Sale of Dunkirk._--The eleventh article charged Lord Clarendon

with having advised and effected the sale of Dunkirk to the French

king, being part of his majesty's dominions, for no greater value than

the ammunition, artillery, and stores were worth. The latter part is

generally asserted to be false. The sum received is deemed the utmost

that Louis would have given, who thought he had made a hard bargain.

But it is very difficult to reconcile what Clarendon asserts in his

defence, and much more at length in his Life (that the business of

Dunkirk was entirely decided before he had anything to do in it, by

the advice of Albemarle and Sandwich), with the letters of d'Estrades,

the negotiator in this transaction on the part of France. In these

letters, written at the time to Louis XIV., Clarendon certainly

appears not only as the person chiefly concerned, but as representing

himself almost the only one of the council favourable to the measure,

and having to overcome the decided repugnance of Southampton,

Sandwich, and Albemarle.[642] I cannot indeed see any other

explanation than that he magnified the obstacles in the way of this

treaty, in order to obtain better terms; a management, not very

unusual in diplomatical dealing, but, in the degree at least to which

he carried it, scarcely reconcilable with the good faith we should

expect from this minister. For the transaction itself, we can hardly

deem it honourable or politic. The expense of keeping up Dunkirk,

though not trifling, would have been willingly defrayed by parliament;

and could not well be pleaded by a government which had just

encumbered itself with the useless burthen of Tangier. That its

possession was of no great direct value to England must be confessed;

but it was another question whether it ought to have been surrendered

into the hands of France.

4. This close connection with France is indeed a great reproach to

Clarendon's policy, and was the spring of mischiefs to which he

contributed, and which he ought to have foreseen. What were the

motives of these strong professions of attachment to the interests of

Louis XIV. which he makes in some of his letters, it is difficult to

say, since he had undoubtedly an ancient prejudice against that

nation and its government. I should incline to conjecture that his

knowledge of the king's unsoundness in religion led him to keep at a

distance from the court of Spain, as being far more zealous in its

popery, and more connected with the Jesuit faction, than that of

France; and this possibly influenced him also with respect to the

Portuguese match, wherein, though not the first adviser, he certainly

took much interest; an alliance as little judicious in the outset, as

it proved eventually fortunate.[643] But the capital misdemeanour that

he committed in this relation with France was the clandestine

solicitation of pecuniary aid for the king. He first taught a lavish

prince to seek the wages of dependence in a foreign power, to elude

the control of parliament by the help of French money.[644] The

purpose for which this aid was asked, the succour of Portugal, might

be fair and laudable; but the precedent was most base, dangerous, and

abominable. A king who had once tasted the sweets of dishonest and

clandestine lucre would, in the words of the poet, be no more capable

afterwards of abstaining from it, than a dog from his greasy offal.

_Clarendon's faults as a minister._--These are the errors of

Clarendon's political life; which, besides his notorious concurrence

in all measures of severity and restraint towards the nonconformists,

tend to diminish our respect from his memory, and to exclude his name

from that list of great and wise ministers, where some are willing to

place him near the head. If I may seem to my readers less favourable

to so eminent a person than common history might warrant, it is at

least to be said that I have formed my decision from his own recorded

sentiments, or from equally undisputable sources of authority. The

publication of his life, that is, of the history of his

administration, has not contributed to his honour. We find in it

little or nothing of that attachment to the constitution for which he

had acquired credit, and some things which we must struggle hard to

reconcile with his veracity, even if the suppression of truth is not

to be reckoned an impeachment of it in an historian.[645] But the

manifest profligacy of those who contributed most to his ruin, and the

measures which the court took soon afterwards, have rendered his

administration comparatively honourable, and attached veneration to

his memory. We are unwilling to believe that there was anything to

censure in a minister, whom Buckingham persecuted, and against whom

Arlington intrigued.[646]

A distinguished characteristic of Clarendon had been his firmness,

called indeed by most pride and obstinacy, which no circumstances, no

perils, seemed likely to bend. But his spirit sunk all at once with

his fortune. Clinging too long to office, and cheating himself against

all probability with a hope of his master's kindness when he had lost

his confidence, he abandoned that dignified philosophy which ennobles

a voluntary retirement, that stern courage which innocence ought to

inspire; and hearkening to the king's treacherous counsels, fled

before his enemies into a foreign country. Though the impeachment, at

least in the point of high treason, cannot be defended, it is

impossible to deny that the act of banishment, under the circumstances

of his flight, was capable, in the main, of full justification. In an

ordinary criminal suit, a process of outlawry goes against the accused

who flies from justice; and his neglect to appear within a given time

is equivalent, in cases of treason or felony, to a conviction of the

offence; can it be complained of, that a minister of state, who dares

not confront a parliamentary impeachment, should be visited with an

analogous penalty? But, whatever injustice and violence may be found

in this prosecution, it established for ever the right of impeachment,

which the discredit into which the long parliament had fallen exposed

to some hazard; the strong abettors of prerogative, such as Clarendon

himself, being inclined to dispute this responsibility of the king's

advisers to parliament. The Commons had, in the preceding session,

sent up an impeachment against Lord Mordaunt, upon charges of so

little public moment, that they may be suspected of having chiefly had

in view the assertion of this important privilege.[647] It was never

called in question from this time; and indeed they took care during

the remainder of this reign, that it should not again be endangered by

a paucity of precedents.[648]

_Cabal ministry._--The period between the fall of Clarendon in 1667,

and the commencement of Lord Danby's administration in 1673, is

generally reckoned one of the most disgraceful in the annals of our

monarchy. This was the age of what is usually denominated the Cabal

administration, from the five initial letters of Sir Thomas Clifford,

first commissioner of the treasury, afterwards Lord Clifford and high

treasurer, the Earl of Arlington, secretary of state, the Duke of

Buckingham, Lord Ashley, chancellor of the exchequer, afterwards Earl

of Shaftesbury and lord chancellor, and lastly, the Duke of

Lauderdale. Yet, though the counsels of these persons soon became

extremely pernicious and dishonourable, it must be admitted that the

first measures after the banishment of Clarendon, both in domestic and

foreign policy, were highly praiseworthy. Bridgeman, who succeeded the

late chancellor in the custody of the great seal, with the assistance

of Chief Baron Hale and Bishop Wilkins, and at the instigation of

Buckingham, who, careless about every religion, was from humanity or

politic motives friendly to the indulgence of all, laid the

foundations of a treaty with the nonconformists, on the basis of a

comprehension for the presbyterians, and a toleration for the

rest.[649] They had nearly come, it is said, to terms of agreement, so

that it was thought time to intimate their design in a speech from

the throne. But the spirit of 1662 was still too powerful in the

Commons; and the friends of Clarendon, whose administration this

change of counsels seemed to reproach, taking a warm part against all

indulgence, a motion that the king be desired to send for such persons

as he should think fit to make proposals to him in order to the

uniting of his protestant subjects, was negatived by 176 to 70.[650]

They proceeded, by almost an equal majority, to continue the bill of

1664, for suppressing seditious conventicles; which failed however for

the present, in consequence of the sudden prorogation.[651]

_Triple alliance._--But whatever difference of opinion might at that

time prevail with respect to this tolerant disposition of the new

government, there was none as to their great measure in external

policy, the triple alliance with Holland and Sweden. A considerable

and pretty sudden change had taken place in the temper of the English

people towards France. Though the discordance of national character,

and the dislike that seems natural to neighbours, as well as in some

measure the recollections of their ancient hostility, had at all times

kept up a certain ill-will between the two, it is manifest that before

the reign of Charles II. there was not that antipathy and inveterate

enmity towards the French in general, which it has since been deemed

an act of patriotism to profess. The national prejudices, from the

accession of Elizabeth to the restoration, ran far more against Spain;

and it is not surprising that the apprehensions of that ambitious

monarchy, which had been very just in the age of Philip II., should

have lasted longer than its ability or inclination to molest us. But

the rapid declension of Spain, after the peace of the Pyrenees, and

the towering ambition of Louis XIV., master of a kingdom intrinsically

so much more formidable than its rival, manifested that the balance of

power in Europe, and our own immediate security, demanded a steady

opposition to the aggrandisement of one monarchy, and a regard to the

preservation of the other. These indeed were rather considerations for

statesmen than for the people; but Louis was become unpopular both by

his acquisition of Dunkirk at the expense, as it was thought, of our

honour, and much more deservedly by his shuffling conduct in the Dutch

war, and union in it with our adversaries. Nothing therefore gave

greater satisfaction in England than the triple alliance, and

consequent peace of Aix la Chapelle, which saved the Spanish

Netherlands from absolute conquest, though not without important

sacrifices.[652]

_Intrigue with France._--Charles himself meanwhile by no means partook

in this common jealousy of France. He had, from the time of his

restoration, entered into close relations with that power, which a

short period of hostility had interrupted without leaving any

resentment in his mind. It is now known that, while his minister was

negotiating at the Hague for the triple alliance, he had made

overtures for a clandestine treaty with Louis, through his sister the

Duchess of Orleans, the Duke of Buckingham, and the French ambassador

Rouvigny.[653] As the King of France was at first backward in meeting

these advances, and the letters published in regard to them are very

few, we do not find any precise object expressed beyond a close and

intimate friendship. But a few words in a memorial of Rouvigny to

Louis XIV. seem to let us into the secret of the real purpose. "The

Duke of York," he says, "wishes much for this union; the Duke of

Buckingham the same: they use no art, but say that nothing else can

re-establish the affairs of this court."[654]

_King's desire to be absolute._--Charles II. was not of a temperament

to desire arbitrary power, either through haughtiness and conceit of

his station, which he did not greatly display, or through the love of

taking into his own hands the direction of public affairs, about which

he was in general pretty indifferent. He did not wish, as he told Lord

Essex, to sit like a Turkish sultan, and sentence men to the

bowstring, but could not bear that a set of fellows should enquire

into his conduct.[655] His aim, in fact, was liberty rather than

power; it was that immunity from control and censure, in which men of

his character place a great part of their happiness. For some years he

had cared probably very little about enhancing his prerogative,

content with the loyalty, though not quite with the liberality, of his

parliament. And had he not been drawn, against his better judgment,

into the war with Holland, this harmony might perhaps have been

protracted a good deal longer. But the vast expenditure of that war,

producing little or no decisive success, and coming unfortunately at a

time when trade was not very thriving, and when rents had considerably

fallen, exasperated all men against the prodigality of the court, to

which they might justly ascribe part of their burthens, and, with the

usual miscalculations, believed that much more of them was due. Hence

the bill appointing commissioners of public account, so ungrateful to

the king, whose personal reputation it was likely to affect, and whose

favourite excesses it might tend to restrain.

He was almost equally provoked by the licence of his people's tongues.

A court like that of Charles is the natural topic of the idle, as well

as the censorious. An administration so ill-conducted could not escape

the remarks of a well-educated and intelligent city. There was one

method of putting an end to these impertinent comments, or of

rendering them innoxious; but it was the last which he would have

adopted. Clarendon informs us that the king one day complaining of the

freedom, as to political conversation, taken in coffee-houses, he

recommended either that all persons should be forbidden by

proclamation to resort to them, or that spies should be placed in them

to give information against seditious speakers.[656] The king, he

says, liked both expedients; but thought it unfair to have recourse to

the latter till the former had given fair warning, and directed him to

propose it to the council; but here, Sir William Coventry objecting,

the king was induced to abandon the measure, much to Clarendon's

disappointment, though it probably saved him an additional article in

his impeachment. The unconstitutional and arbitrary tenor of this

great minister's notions of government is strongly displayed in this

little anecdote. Coventry was an enlightened, and, for that age, an

upright man, whose enmity Clarendon brought on himself by a marked

jealousy of his abilities in council.

Those who stood nearest to the king were not backward to imitate his

discontent at the privileges of his people and their representatives.

The language of courtiers and court-ladies is always intolerable to

honest men, especially that of such courtiers as surrounded the throne

of Charles II. It is worst of all amidst public calamities, such as

pressed very closely on one another in a part of his reign; the awful

pestilence of 1665, the still more ruinous fire of 1666, the fleet

burned by the Dutch in the Medway next summer. No one could reproach

the king for outward inactivity or indifference during the great fire.

But there were some, as Clarendon tells us, who presumed to assure

him, "that this was the greatest blessing that God had ever conferred

on him, his restoration only excepted; for the walls and gates being

now burned and thrown down of that rebellious city, which was always

an enemy to the Crown, his majesty would never suffer them to repair

and build them up again, to be a bit in his mouth and a bridle upon

his neck; but would keep all open, that his troops might enter upon

them whenever he thought it necessary for his service; there being no

other way to govern that rude multitude but by force."[657] This kind

of discourse, he goes on to say, did not please the king. But here we

may venture to doubt his testimony; or, if the natural good temper of

Charles prevented him from taking pleasure in such atrocious

congratulations, we may be sure that he was not sorry to think the

city more in his power.

It seems probable that this loose and profligate way of speaking gave

rise, in a great degree, to the suspicion that the city had been

purposely burned by those who were more enemies to religion and

liberty than to the court. The papists stood ready to bear the infamy

of every unproved crime; and a committee of the House of Commons

collected evidence enough for those who were already convinced, that

London had been burned by that obnoxious sect. Though the house did

not proceed farther, there can be no doubt that the enquiry

contributed to produce that inveterate distrust of the court, whose

connections with the popish faction were half known, half conjectured,

which gave from this time an entirely new complexion to the

parliament. Prejudiced as the Commons were, they could hardly have

imagined the catholics to have burned the city out of mere

malevolence; but must have attributed the crime to some far-spreading

plan of subverting the established constitution.[658]

The retention of the king's guards had excited some jealousy, though

no complaints seem to have been made of it in parliament; but the

sudden levy of a considerable force in 1667, however founded upon a

very plausible pretext from the circumstances of the war, lending

credit to these dark surmises of the court's sinister designs, gave

much greater alarm. The Commons, summoned together in July, instantly

addressed the king to disband his army as soon as peace should be

made. We learn from the Duke of York's private memoirs that some of

those who were most respected for their ancient attachment to liberty,

deemed it in jeopardy at this crisis. The Earls of Northumberland and

Leicester, Lord Hollis, Mr. Pierrepont, and others of the old

parliamentary party, met to take measures together. The first of these

told the Duke of York that the nation would not be satisfied with the

removal of the chancellor, unless the guards were disbanded, and

several other grievances redressed. The duke bade him be cautious what

he said, lest he should be obliged to inform the king; but

Northumberland replied that it was his intention to repeat the same to

the king, which he did accordingly the next day.[659]

This change in public sentiment gave warning to Charles that he could

not expect to reign with as little trouble as he had hitherto

experienced; and doubtless the recollection of his father's history

did not contribute to cherish the love he sometimes pretended for

parliaments. His brother, more reflecting and more impatient of

restraint on royal authority, saw with still greater clearness than

the king, that they could only keep the prerogative at its desired

height by means of intimidation. A regular army was indispensable; but

to keep up an army in spite of parliament, or to raise money for its

support without parliament, were very difficult undertakings. It

seemed necessary to call in a more powerful arm than their own; and,

by establishing the closest union with the King of France, to obtain

either military or pecuniary succours from him, as circumstances

might demand. But there was another and not less imperious motive for

a secret treaty. The king, as has been said, though little likely,

from the tenor of his life, to feel very strong and lasting

impressions of religion, had at times a desire to testify publicly his

adherence to the Romish communion. The Duke of York had come more

gradually to change the faith in which he was educated. He describes

it as the result of patient and anxious enquiry; nor would it be

possible therefore to fix a precise date for his conversion, which

seems to have been not fully accomplished till after the

Restoration.[660] He however continued in conformity to the church of

England; till, on discovering that the catholic religion exacted an

outward communion, which he had fancied not indispensable, he became

more uneasy at the restraint that policy imposed on him. This led to a

conversation with the king, of whose private opinions and disposition

to declare them he was probably informed, and to a close union with

Clifford and Arlington, from whom he had stood aloof on account of

their animosity against Clarendon. The king and duke held a

consultation with those two ministers, and with Lord Arundel of

Wardour, on the 25th of January 1669, to discuss the ways and methods

fit to be taken for the advancement of the catholic religion in these

kingdoms. The king spoke earnestly, and with tears in his eyes. After

a long deliberation, it was agreed that there was no better way to

accomplish this purpose than through France; the house of Austria

being in no condition to give any assistance.[661]

_Secret treaty of 1670._--The famous secret treaty, which, though

believed on pretty good evidence not long after the time, was first

actually brought to light by Dalrymple about half a century since,

began to be negotiated very soon after this consultation.[662] We

find allusions to the king's projects in one of his letters to the

Duchess of Orleans, dated 22nd March 1669.[663] In another of June 6,

the methods he was adopting to secure himself in this perilous

juncture appear. He was to fortify Plymouth, Hull, and Portsmouth, and

to place them in trusty hands. The fleet was under the duke, as lord

admiral; the guards and their officers were thought in general well

affected;[664] but his great reliance was on the most christian king.

He stipulated for £200,000 annually, and for the aid of 6000 French

troops.[665] In return for such important succour, Charles undertook

to serve his ally's ambition and wounded pride against the United

Provinces. These, when conquered by the French arms, with the

co-operation of an English navy, were already shared by the royal

conspirators. A part of Zealand fell to the lot of England, the

remainder of the Seven Provinces to France, with an understanding that

some compensation should be made to the Prince of Orange. In the event

of any new rights to the Spanish monarchy accruing to the most

christian king, as it is worded (that is, on the death of the King of

Spain, a sickly child), it was agreed that England should assist him

with all her force by sea and land, but at his own expense; and should

obtain, not only Ostend and Minorca, but, as far as the King of France

could contribute to it, such parts of Spanish America as she should

choose to conquer.[666] So strange a scheme of partitioning that vast

inheritance was never, I believe, suspected till the publication of

the treaty; though Bolingbroke had alluded to a previous treaty of

partition between Louis and the Emperor Leopold, the complete

discovery of which has been but lately made.[667]

_Differences between Charles and Louis as to the mode of the execution

of the treaty._--Each conspirator, in his coalition against the

protestant faith and liberties of Europe, had splendid objects in

view; but those of Louis seemed by far the more probable of the two,

and less liable to be defeated. The full completion of their scheme

would have re-united a great kingdom to the catholic religion, and

turned a powerful neighbour into a dependent pensioner. But should

this fail (and Louis was too sagacious not to discern the chances of

failure), he had pledged to him the assistance of an ally in

subjugating the republic of Holland, which, according to all human

calculation, could not withstand their united efforts; nay, even in

those ulterior projects which his restless and sanguine ambition had

ever in view, and the success of which would have realised, not indeed

the chimera of an universal monarchy, but a supremacy and dictatorship

over Europe. Charles, on the other hand, besides that he had no other

return to make for the necessary protection of France, was impelled by

a personal hatred of the Dutch, and by the consciousness that their

commonwealth was the standing reproach of arbitrary power, to join

readily in the plan for its subversion. But, looking first to his own

objects, and perhaps a little distrustful of his ally, he pressed that

his profession of the Roman catholic religion should be the first

measure in prosecution of the treaty; and that he should immediately

receive the stipulated £200,000, or at least a part of the money.

Louis insisted that the declaration of war against Holland should

precede. This difference occasioned a considerable delay; and it was

chiefly with a view of bringing round her brother on this point, that

the Duchess of Orleans took her famous journey to Dover in the spring

of 1670. Yet, notwithstanding her influence, which passed for

irresistible, he persisted in adhering to the right reserved to him in

the draft of the treaty, of choosing his own time for the declaration

of his religion, and it was concluded on this footing at Dover, by

Clifford, Arundel, and Arlington, on the 22nd of May 1670, during the

visit of the Duchess of Orleans.[668]

A mutual distrust, however, retarded the further progress of this

scheme; one party unwilling to commit himself till he should receive

money, the other too cautious to run the risk of throwing it away.

There can be no question but that the King of France was right in

urging the conquest of Holland as a preliminary of the more delicate

business they were to manage in England; and, from Charles's

subsequent behaviour, as well as his general fickleness and love of

ease, there seems reason to believe that he would gladly have receded

from an undertaking of which he must every day have more strongly

perceived the difficulties. He confessed, in fact, to Louis's

ambassador, that he was almost the only man in his kingdom who liked a

French alliance.[669] The change of religion, on a nearer view,

appeared dangerous for himself, and impracticable as a national

measure. He had not dared to intrust any of his protestant ministers,

even Buckingham, whose indifference in such points was notorious, with

this great secret; and, to keep them the better in the dark, a mock

negotiation was set on foot with France, and a pretended treaty

actually signed, the exact counterpart of the other, except as to

religion. Buckingham, Shaftesbury, and Lauderdale were concerned in

this simulated treaty, the negotiation for which did not commence till

after the original convention had been signed at Dover.[670]

The court of France having yielded to Charles the point about which he

had seemed so anxious, had soon the mortification to discover that he

would take no steps to effect it. They now urged that immediate

declaration of his religion, which they had for very wise reasons not

long before dissuaded. The King of England hung back, and tried so

many excuses, that they had reason to suspect his sincerity; not that

in fact he had played a feigned part from the beginning, but his zeal

for popery having given way to the seductions of a voluptuous and

indolent life, he had been led, with the good sense he naturally

possessed, to form a better estimate of his resources and of the

opposition he must encounter. Meanwhile the eagerness of his ministers

had plunged the nation into war with Holland; and Louis, having

attained his principal end, ceased to trouble the king on the subject

of religion. He received large sums from France during the Dutch

war.[671]

This memorable transaction explains and justifies the strenuous

opposition made in parliament to the king and Duke of York, and may be

reckoned the first act of a drama which ended in the revolution. It is

true that the precise terms of this treaty were not authentically

known; but there can be no doubt that those who from this time

displayed an insuperable jealousy of one brother, and a determined

enmity to the other, had proofs, enough for moral conviction, of their

deep conspiracy with France against religion and liberty. This

suspicion is implied in all the conduct of that parliamentary

opposition, and is the apology of much that seems violence and

faction, especially in the business of the popish plot and the bill of

exclusion. It is of importance also to observe that James II. was not

misled and betrayed by false or foolish counsellors, as some would

suggest, in his endeavours to subvert the laws, but acted on a plan,

long since concerted, and in which he had taken a principal share.

It must be admitted that neither in the treaty itself nor in the few

letters which have been published by Dalrymple, do we find any

explicit declaration, either that the catholic religion was to be

established as the national church, or arbitrary power introduced in

England. But there are not wanting strong presumptions of this design.

The king speaks, in a letter to his sister, of finding means to put

the proprietors of church lands out of apprehension.[672] He uses the

expression, "rétablir la religion catholique;" which, though not quite

unequivocal, seems to convey more than a bare toleration, or a

personal profession by the sovereign.[673] He talks of a negotiation

with the court of Rome to obtain the permission of having mass in the

vulgar tongue and communion in both kinds, as terms that would render

his conversion agreeable to his subjects.[674] He tells the French

ambassador, that not only his conscience, but the confusion he saw

every day increasing in his kingdom, to the diminution of his

authority, impelled him to declare himself a catholic; which, besides

the spiritual advantage, he believed to be the only means of restoring

the monarchy. These passages, as well as the precautions taken in

expectation of a vigorous resistance from a part of the nation, appear

to intimate a formal re-establishment of the catholic church; a

measure connected, in the king's apprehension, if not strictly with

arbitrary power, yet with a very material enhancement of his

prerogative. For the profession of an obnoxious faith by the king, as

an insulated person, would, instead of strengthening his authority,

prove the greatest obstacle to it; as, in the next reign, turned out

to be the case. Charles, however, and the Duke of York deceived

themselves into a confidence that the transition could be effected

with no extraordinary difficulty. The king knew the prevailing laxity

of religious principles in many about his court, and thought he had

reason to rely on others as secretly catholic. Sunderland is mentioned

as a young man of talent, inclined to adopt that religion.[675] Even

the Earl of Orrery is spoken of as a catholic in his heart.[676] The

duke, who conversed more among divines, was led to hope, from the

strange language of the high-church party, that they might readily be

persuaded to make what seemed no long step, and come into easy terms

of union.[677] It was the constant policy of the Romish priests to

extenuate the differences between the two churches, and to throw the

main odium of the schism on the Calvinistic sects. And many of the

Anglicans, in their abhorrence of protestant nonconformists, played

into the hands of the common enemy.

_Fresh severities against dissenters._--The court, however,

entertained great hopes from the depressed condition of the

dissenters, whom it was intended to bribe with that toleration under a

catholic regimen, which they could so little expect from the church of

England. Hence the Duke of York was always strenuous against schemes

of comprehension, which would invigorate the protestant interest and

promote conciliation. With the opposite view of rendering a union

among protestants impracticable, the rigorous episcopalians were

encouraged underhand to prosecute the nonconformists.[678] The Duke of

York took pains to assure Owen, an eminent divine of the independent

persuasion, that he looked on all persecution as an unchristian thing,

and altogether against his conscience.[679] Yet the court promoted a

renewal of the temporary act, passed in 1664 against conventicles,

which was reinforced by the addition of an extraordinary proviso, That

all clauses in the act should be construed most largely and

beneficially for suppressing conventicles, and for the justification

and encouragement of all persons to be employed in the execution

thereof.[680] Wilkins, the most honest of the bishops, opposed this

act in the House of Lords, notwithstanding the king's personal

request that he would be silent.[681] Sheldon and others, who, like

him, disgraced the church of England by their unprincipled policy or

their passions, not only gave it their earnest support at the time,

but did all in their power to enforce its execution.[682] As the

king's temper was naturally tolerant, his co-operation in this severe

measure would not easily be understood, without the explanation that a

knowledge of his secret policy enables us to give. In no long course

of time the persecution was relaxed, the imprisoned ministers set at

liberty, some of the leading dissenters received pensions, and the

king's declaration of a general indulgence held forth an asylum from

the law under the banner of prerogative.[683] Though this is said to

have proceeded from the advice of Shaftesbury, who had no concern in

the original secret treaty with France, it was completely in the

spirit of that compact, and must have been acceptable to the king.

But the factious, fanatical, republican party (such were the usual

epithets of the court at the time, such have ever since been applied

by the advocates or apologists of the Stuarts), had gradually led away

by their delusions that parliament of cavaliers; or, in other words,

the glaring vices of the king, and the manifestation of designs

against religion and liberty, had dispossessed them of a confiding

loyalty, which, though highly dangerous from its excess, had always

been rather ardent than servile. The sessions had been short, and the

intervals of repeated prorogations much longer than usual; a policy

not well calculated for that age, where the growing discontents and

suspicions of the people acquired strength by the stoppage of the

regular channel of complaint. Yet the House of Commons, during this

period, though unmanageable on the one point of toleration, had

displayed no want of confidence in the king nor any animosity towards

his administration; notwithstanding the flagrant abuses in the

expenditure, which the parliamentary commission of public accounts had

brought to light, and the outrageous assault on Sir John Coventry; a

crime notoriously perpetrated by persons employed by the court, and

probably by the king's direct order.[684]

_Dutch war._--The war with Holland at the beginning of 1672, so

repugnant to English interests, so unwarranted by any provocation, so

infamously piratical in its commencement, so ominous of further

schemes still more dark and dangerous, finally opened the eyes of all

men of integrity. It was accompanied by the shutting up of the

exchequer, an avowed bankruptcy at the moment of beginning an

expensive war,[685] and by the declaration of indulgence, or

suspension of all penal laws in religion; an assertion of prerogative

which seemed without limit. These exorbitances were the more

scandalous, that they happened during a very long prorogation. Hence

the court so lost the confidence of the House of Commons, that, with

all the lavish corruption of the following period, it could never

regain a secure majority on any important question. The superiority of

what was called the country party is referred to the session of

February 1673, in which they compelled the king to recall his

proclamation suspending the penal laws, and raised a barrier against

the encroachments of popery in the test act.

_Declaration of indulgence._--The king's declaration of indulgence

had been projected by Shaftesbury, in order to conciliate or lull to

sleep the protestant dissenters. It redounded, in its immediate

effect, chiefly to their benefit; the catholics already enjoying a

connivance at the private exercise of their religion, and the

declaration expressly refusing them public places of worship. The plan

was most laudable in itself, could we separate the motives which

prompted it, and the means by which it was pretended to be made

effectual. But in the declaration the king says, "We think ourselves

obliged to make use of that supreme power in ecclesiastical matters,

which is not only inherent in us, but hath been declared and

recognised to be so by several statutes and acts of parliament." "We

do," he says, not long afterwards, "declare our will and pleasure to

be, that the execution of all and all manner of penal laws in matters

ecclesiastical, against whatsoever sort of nonconformists or

recusants, be immediately suspended, and they are hereby suspended."

He mentions also his intention to license a certain number of places

for the religious worship of nonconforming protestants.[686]

It was generally understood to be an ancient prerogative of the Crown

to dispense with penal statutes in favour of particular persons, and

under certain restrictions. It was undeniable, that the king might, by

what is called a "noli prosequi," stop any criminal prosecution

commenced in his courts, though not an action for the recovery of a

pecuniary penalty, which, by many statutes, was given to the common

informer. He might of course set at liberty, by means of a pardon, any

person imprisoned, whether upon conviction or by a magistrate's

warrant. Thus the operation of penal statutes in religion might in a

great measure be rendered ineffectual, by an exercise of undisputed

prerogatives; and thus, in fact, the catholics had been enabled, since

the accession of the house of Stuart, to withstand the crushing

severity of the laws. But a pretension, in explicit terms, to suspend

a body of statutes, a command to magistrates not to put them in

execution, arrogated a sort of absolute power, which no benefits of

the indulgence itself (had they even been less insidiously offered)

could induce a lover of constitutional privileges to endure.[687]

Notwithstanding the affected distinction of temporal and

ecclesiastical matters, it was evident that the king's supremacy was

as much capable of being bounded by the legislature in one as in the

other, and that every law in the statute-book might be repealed by a

similar proclamation. The House of Commons voted that the king's

prerogative, in matters ecclesiastical, does not extend to repeal acts

of parliament; and addressed the king to recall his declaration.

Whether from a desire to protect the nonconformists in a toleration

even illegally obtained, or from the influence of Buckingham among

some of the leaders of opposition, it appears from the debates that

many of those, who had been in general most active against the court,

resisted this vote, which was carried by 168 to 116. The king, in his

answer to this address, lamented that the house should question his

ecclesiastical power, which had never been done before. This brought

on a fresh rebuke; and, in a second address they positively deny the

king's right to suspend any law. "The legislative power," they say,

"has always been acknowledged to reside in the king and two houses of

parliament." The king, in a speech to the House of Lords, complained

much of the opposition made by the Commons; and found a majority of

the former disposed to support him, though both houses concurred in an

address against the growth of popery. At length, against the advice of

the bolder part of his council, but certainly with a just sense of

what he most valued, his ease of mind, Charles gave way to the public

voice, and withdrew his declaration.[688]

There was indeed a line of policy indicated at this time, which,

though intolerable to the bigotry and passion of the house, would best

have foiled the schemes of the ministry; a legislative repeal of all

the penal statutes both against the catholic and the protestant

dissenter, as far as regarded the exercise of their religion. It must

be evident to any impartial man that the unrelenting harshness of

parliament, from whom no abatement, even in the sanguinary laws

against the priests of the Romish church, had been obtained, had

naturally, and almost irresistibly, driven the members of that

persuasion into the camp of prerogative, and even furnished a pretext

for that continual intrigue and conspiracy, which was carried on in

the court of Charles II., as it had been in that of his father. A

genuine toleration would have put an end to much of this; but, in the

circumstances of that age, it could not have been safely granted

without an exclusion from those public trusts, which were to be

conferred by a sovereign in whom no trust could be reposed.

The act of supremacy, in the first year of Elizabeth, had imposed on

all, accepting temporal as well as ecclesiastical offices, an oath

denying the spiritual jurisdiction of the pope. But, though the

refusal of this oath, when tendered, incurred various penalties, yet

it does not appear that any were attached to its neglect, or that the

oath was a previous qualification for the enjoyment of office, as it

was made by a subsequent act of the same reign for sitting in the

House of Commons. It was found also by experience that persons

attached to the Roman doctrine sometimes made use of strained

constructions to reconcile the oath of supremacy to their faith. Nor

could that test be offered to peers, who were accepted by a special

provision.

_Test act._--For these several reasons a more effectual security

against popish counsellors, at least in notorious power, was created

by the famous test act of 1673, which renders the reception of the

sacrament according to the rites of the church of England, and a

declaration renouncing the doctrine of transubstantiation, preliminary

conditions without which no temporal office of trust can be

enjoyed.[689] In this fundamental article of faith, no compromise or

equivocation would be admitted by any member of the church of Rome.

And, as the obligation extended to the highest ranks, this reached the

end for which it was immediately designed; compelling, not only the

lord-treasurer Clifford, the boldest and most dangerous of that party,

to retire from public business, but the Duke of York himself, whose

desertion of the protestant church was hitherto not absolutely

undisguised, to quit the post of lord admiral.[690]

It is evident that a test might have been framed to exclude the Roman

catholic as effectually as the present, without bearing like this on

the protestant nonconformist. But, though the preamble of the bill,

and the whole history of the transaction, show that the main object

was a safeguard against popery, it is probable that a majority of both

houses liked it the better for this secondary effect of shutting out

the presbyterians still more than had been done by previous statutes

of this reign. There took place however a remarkable coalition between

the two parties; and many who had always acted as high-church men and

cavaliers, sensible at last of the policy of their common adversaries,

renounced a good deal of the intolerance and bigotry that had

characterised the present parliament. The dissenters, with much

prudence or laudable disinterestedness, gave their support to the test

act. In return, a bill was brought in, and, after some debate, passed

to the lords, repealing in a considerable degree the persecuting laws

against their worship.[691] The upper house, perhaps insidiously,

returned it with amendments more favourable to the dissenters, and

insisted upon them, after a conference.[692] A sudden prorogation very

soon put an end to this bill, which was as unacceptable to the court

as it was to the zealots of the church of England. It had been

intended to follow it up by another, excluding all who should not

conform to the established church from serving in the House of

Commons.[693]

It may appear remarkable that, as if content with these provisions,

the victorious country party did not remonstrate against the shutting

up of the exchequer, nor even wage any direct war against the king's

advisers. They voted, on the contrary, a large supply, which, as they

did not choose explicitly to recognise the Dutch war, was expressed to

be granted for the king's extraordinary occasions.[694] This

moderation, which ought at least to rescue them from the charges of

faction and violence, has been censured by some as servile and

corrupt; and would really incur censure, if they had not attained the

great object of breaking the court measures by other means. But the

test act, and their steady protestation against the suspending

prerogative, crushed the projects and dispersed the members of the

cabal. The king had no longer any minister on whom he could rely, and,

with his indolent temper, seems from this time, if not to have

abandoned all hope of declaring his change of religion, yet to have

seen both that and his other favourite projects postponed without much

reluctance. From a real predilection, from the prospect of gain, and

partly, no doubt, from some distant views of arbitrary power and a

catholic establishment, he persevered a long time in clinging secretly

to the interests of France; but his active co-operation in the schemes

of 1669 was at an end. In the next session of October 1673, the

Commons drove Buckingham from the king's councils; they intimidated

Arlington into a change of policy; and, though they did not succeed in

removing the Duke of Lauderdale, compelled him to confine himself

chiefly to the affairs of Scotland.[695]

FOOTNOTES:

[523] _Life of Clarendon_, p. 69.

[524] _Clar. State Papers_, iii. 427, 529. In fact, very few of them

were likely to be of use; and the exception made his general offers

appear more sincere.

[525] _Clar. Hist. of Rebellion_, vii. 447. Ludlow says that Fairfax

and Northumberland were positively against the punishment of the

regicides (vol. iii. p. 10); and that Monk vehemently declared at

first against any exceptions, and afterwards prevailed on the house to

limit them to seven. P. 16. Though Ludlow was not in England, this

seems very probable, and is confirmed by other authority as to Monk.

Fairfax, who had sat one day himself on the king's trial, could hardly

with decency concur in the punishment of those who went on.

[526] Journals, May 14.

[527] June 5, 6, 7. The first seven were Scott, Holland, Lisle,

Barkstead, Harrison, Say, Jones. They went on to add Coke, Broughton,

Dendy.

[528] These were Lenthall, Vane, Burton, Keble, St. John, Ireton,

Haslerig, Sydenham, Desborough, Axtell, Lambert, Pack, Blackwell,

Fleetwood, Pyne, Dean, Creed, Nye, Goodwin, and Cobbet; some of them

rather insignificant names. Upon the words that "twenty and no more"

be so excepted, two divisions took place, 160 to 131, and 153 to 135;

the presbyterians being the majority. June 8. Two other divisions took

place on the names of Lenthall, carried by 215 to 126, and of

Whitelock, lost by 175 to 134. Another motion was made afterwards

against Whitelock by Prynne. Milton was ordered to be prosecuted

separately from the twenty; so that they already broke their

resolution. He was put in custody of the serjeant-at-arms, and

released, December 17. Andrew Marvell, his friend, soon afterwards

complained that fees to the amount of 150 pounds had been extorted

from him; but Finch answered that Milton had been Cromwell's

secretary, and deserved hanging. _Parl. Hist._ p. 162. Lenthall had

taken some share in the restoration, and entered into correspondence

with the king's advisers a little before. _Clar. State Papers_, iii.

711, 720. Kennet's _Register_, 762. But the royalists never could

forgive his having put the question to the vote on the ordinance for

trying the late king.

[529] June 30. This was carried without a division. Eleven were

afterwards excepted by name, as not having rendered themselves. July

9.

[530] July 11.

[531] The worst and most odious of their proceedings, quite unworthy

of a christian and civilised assembly, was to give the next relations

of the four peers who had been executed under the commonwealth,

Hamilton, Holland, Capel, and Derby, the privilege of naming each one

person (among the regicides) to be executed. This was done in the

three last instances; but Lord Denbigh, as Hamilton's kinsman,

nominated one who was dead; and, on this being pointed out to him,

refused to fix on another. Journal, Aug. 7; Ludlow, iii. 34.

[532] Lord Southampton, according to Ludlow, actually moved this in

the House of Lords, but was opposed by Finch, iii. 43.

[533] Clarendon uses some shameful chicanery about this (_Life_, p.

69); and with that inaccuracy, to say the least, so habitual to him,

says, "the parliament had published a proclamation, that all who did

not render themselves by a day named should be judged as guilty, and

attainted of treason." The proclamation was published by the king, on

the suggestion indeed of the Lords and Commons, and the expressions

were what I have stated in the text. _State Trials_, v. 959; _Somers

Tracts_, vii. 437. It is obvious that by this mis-representation he

not only throws the blame of ill faith off the king's shoulders, but

puts the case of those who obeyed the proclamation on a very different

footing. The king, it seems, had always expected that none of the

regicides should be spared. But why did he publish such a

proclamation? Clarendon, however, seems to have been against the other

exceptions from the bill of indemnity, as contrary to some expressions

in the declaration from Breda, which had been inserted by Monk's

advice; and thus wisely and honourably got rid of the twenty

exceptions, which had been sent up from the Commons. P. 133. The lower

house resolved to agree with the Lords as to those twenty persons, or

rather sixteen of them, by 197 to 102, Hollis and Morrice telling the

Ayes.

[534] Stat. 12 Car. II. c. 11.

[535] These were, in the first instance, Harrison, Scott, Scrope,

Jones, Clement, Carew, all of whom had signed the warrant, Cook, the

solicitor at the high court of justice, Hacker and Axtell, who

commanded the guard on that occasion, and Peters. Two years

afterwards, Downing, ambassador in Holland, prevailed on the states to

give up Barkstead, Corbet, and Okey. They all died with great

constancy, and an enthusiastic persuasion of the righteousness of

their cause. _State Trials._

Pepys says in his _Diary_, 13th October 1660, of Harrison, whose

execution he witnessed, that "he looked as cheerful as any man could

do in that condition."

[536] It is remarkable, that Scrope had been so particularly favoured

by the convention parliament, as to be exempted, together with

Hutchinson and Lascelles, from any penalty or forfeiture by a special

resolution. June 9. But the Lords put in his name again, though they

pointedly excepted Hutchinson; and the Commons, after first resolving

that he should only pay a fine of one year's value of his estate, came

at last to agree in excepting him from the indemnity as to life. It

appears that some private conversation of Scrope had been betrayed,

wherein he spoke of the king's death as he thought.

As to Hutchinson, he had certainly concurred in the restoration,

having an extreme dislike to the party who had turned out the

parliament in Oct. 1659, especially Lambert. This may be inferred from

his conduct, as well as by what Ludlow says, and Kennet in his

_Register_, p. 169. His wife puts a speech into his mouth as to his

share in the king's death, not absolutely justifying it, but, I

suspect, stronger than he ventured to use. At least, the Commons voted

that he should not be excepted from the indemnity, "on account of his

signal repentance," which could hardly be predicated of the language

she ascribes to him. Compare Mrs. Hutchinson's _Memoirs_, p. 367, with

Commons' Journals, June 9.

[537] Horace Walpole, in his _Catalogue of Noble Authors_, has thought

fit to censure both these persons for their pretended inconsistency.

The case is, however, different as to Monk and Cooper; and perhaps it

may be thought, that men of more delicate sentiments than either of

these possessed, would not have sat upon the trial of those with whom

they had long professed to act in concert, though innocent of their

crime.

[538] Commons' Journals, May 12, 1660.

[539] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 80.

[540] _Id._ iv. 129.

[541] _Memoirs_, p. 229. It appears by some passages in the _Clarendon

Papers_, that the church had not expected to come off so brilliantly;

and, while the restoration was yet unsettled, would have been content

to give leases of their lands. Pp. 620, 723. Hyde, however, was

convinced that the church would be either totally ruined, or restored

to a great lustre; and herein he was right, as it turned out. P. 614.

[542] _Life of Clarendon_, 99. L'Estrange, in a pamphlet printed

before the end of 1660, complains that the cavaliers were neglected,

the king betrayed, the creatures of Cromwell, Bradshaw, and St. John

laden with offices and honours. Of the indemnity he says, "That act

made the enemies to the constitution masters in effect of the booty of

three nations, bating the Crown and church lands, all which they might

now call their own; while those who stood up for the laws were

abandoned to the comfort of an irreparable but honourable ruin." He

reviles the presbyterian ministers still in possession; and tells the

king that misplaced lenity was his father's ruin. Kennet's _Register_,

p. 233. See too, in _Somers Tracts_, vii. 517, "The Humble

Representation of the Sad Condition of the King's Party." Also p. 557.

[543] Commons' Journals, 4 September 1660. Sir Philip Warwick,

chancellor of the exchequer, assured Pepys that the revenue fell short

by a fourth of the £1,200,000 voted by parliament. See his _Diary_,

March 1, 1664. Ralph, however, says, the income in 1662 was

£1,120,593, though the expenditure was £1,439,000. P. 88. It appears

probable that the hereditary excise did not yet produce much beyond

its estimate. _Id._ p. 20.

[544] 21 Nov. 1660, 151 to 149. _Parl. Hist._

[545] The troops disbanded were fourteen regiments of horse and

eighteen of foot in England: one of horse and four of foot in

Scotland, besides garrisons. Journals, Nov. 7.

[546] Ralph, 35; _Life of James_, 447; Grose's _Military Antiquities_,

i. 61.

[547] Neal, 429, 444.

[548] _Id._ 471; Pepy's _Diary_, ad init. Even in Oxford, about 300

episcopalians used to meet every Sunday with the connivance of Dr.

Owen, dean of Christ Church. Orme's _Life of Owen_, 188. It is

somewhat bold in Anglican writers to complain, as they now and then

do, of the persecution they suffered at this period, when we consider

what had been the conduct of the bishops before, and what it was

afterwards. I do not know that any member of the church of England was

imprisoned under the commonwealth, except for some political reason;

certain it is that the gaols were not filled with them.

[549] The penal laws were comparatively dormant, though two priests

suffered death, one of them before the protectorate. Butler's _Mem. of

Catholics_, ii. 13. But in 1655 Cromwell issued a proclamation for the

execution of these statutes; which seems to have been provoked by the

persecution of the Vaudois. Whitelocke tells us he opposed it. 625. It

was not acted upon.

[550] Several of these appear in _Somers Tracts_, vol. vii. The king's

nearest friends were of course not backward in praising him, though a

little at the expense of their consciences. "In a word," says Hyde to

a correspondent in 1659, "if being the best protestant and the best

Englishman of the nation can do the king good at home, he must prosper

with and by his own subjects." _Clar. State Papers_, 541. Morley says

he had been to see Judge Hale, who asked him questions about the

king's character and firmness in the protestant religion. _Id._ 736.

Morley's exertions to dispossess men of the notion that the king and

his brother were inclined to popery, are also mentioned by Kennet in

his _Register_, 818: a book containing very copious information as to

this particular period. Yet Morley could hardly have been without

strong suspicions as to both of them.

[551] He had written in cipher to Secretary Nicholas, from St.

Johnston's, Sept. 3, 1650, the day of the battle of Dunbar, "Nothing

could have confirmed me more to the church of England than being here,

seeing their hypocrisy." Supplement to Evelyn's _Diary_, 133. The

whole letter shows that he was on the point of giving his new friends

the slip; as indeed he attempted soon after, in what was called the

Start. Laing, iii. 463.

[552] 12 Car. II. c. 17. It is quite clear that an usurped possession

was confirmed by this act, where the lawful incumbent was dead; though

Burnet intimates the contrary.

[553] _Parl. Hist._ 94. The chancellor, in his speech to the houses at

their adjournment in September, gave them to understand that this bill

was not quite satisfactory to the court, who preferred the

confirmation of ministers by particular letters patent under the great

seal; that the king's prerogative of dispensing with acts of

parliament might not grow into disuse. Many got the additional

security of such patents; which proved of service to them, when the

next parliament did not think fit to confirm this important statute.

Baxter says (p. 241), some got letters patent to turn out the

possessors, where the former incumbents were dead. These must have

been to benefices in the gift of the Crown; in other cases, letters

patent could have been of no effect. I have found this confirmed by

the Journals, Aug. 27, 1660.

[554] Upon Venner's insurrection, though the sectaries, and especially

the independents, published a declaration of their abhorrence of it, a

pretext was found for issuing a proclamation to shut up the

conventicles of the anabaptists and quakers, and so worded as to reach

all others. Kennet's _Register_, 357.

[555] Collier, 869, 871; Baxter, 232, 238. The bishops said, in their

answer to the presbyterians' proposals, that the objections against a

single person's administration in the church were equally applicable

to the state. Collier, 872. But this was false, as they well knew, and

designed only to produce an effect at court; for the objections were

not grounded on reasoning, but on a presumed positive institution.

Besides which, the argument cut against themselves: for, if the

English constitution, or something analogous to it, had been

established in the church, their adversaries would have had all they

_now_ asked.