Constitution of the Primitive Church_. The former work was published
at this time, with a view to moderate the pretensions of the Anglican
party, to which the author belonged, by showing: 1. That there are no
sufficient data for determining with certainty the form of
church-government in the apostolical age, or that which immediately
followed it. 2. That, as far as we may probably conjecture, the
primitive church was framed on the model of the synagogue; that is, a
synod of priests in every congregation having one of their own number
for a chief or president. 3. That there is no reason to consider any
part of the apostolical discipline as an invariable model for future
ages, and that much of our own ecclesiastical polity cannot any way
pretend to primitive authority. 4. That this has been the opinion of
all the most eminent theologians at home and abroad. 5. That it would
be expedient to introduce various modifications, not on the whole much
different from the scheme of Usher. Stillingfleet, whose work is a
remarkable instance of extensive learning and mature judgment at the
age of about twenty-three, thought fit afterwards to retract it in a
certain degree; and towards the latter part of his life, gave into
more high-church politics. It is true that the _Irenicum_ must have
been composed with almost unparalleled rapidity for such a work; but
it shows, as far as I can judge, no marks of precipitancy. The
biographical writers put its publication in 1659; but this must be a
mistake; no one can avoid perceiving that it could not have passed the
press on the 24th of March 1660, the latest day which could, according
to the old style, have admitted the date of 1659, as it contains
allusions to the king's restoration.
[557] Baxter's _Life_; Neal.
[558] They addressed the king to call such divines as he should think
fit, to advise with concerning matters of religion. July 20, 1660.
Journals and _Parl. Hist._
[559] _Parl. Hist._; Neal, Baxter, Collier, etc. Burnet says that
Clarendon had made the king publish this declaration; "but the bishops
did not approve of this; and, after the service they did that lord in
the Duke of York's marriage, he would not put any hardship on those
who had so signally obliged him." This is very invidious. I know no
evidence that the declaration was published at Clarendon's suggestion,
except indeed that he was the great adviser of the Crown; yet in some
things, especially of this nature, the king seems to have acted
without his concurrence. He certainly speaks of the declaration as if
he did not wholly relish it (_Life_, 75), and does not state it
fairly. In _State Trials_, vi. 11, it is said to have been drawn up by
Morley and Henchman for the church, Reynolds and Calamy for the
dissenters; if they disagreed, Lords Anglesea and Hollis to decide.
[560] The chief objection made by the presbyterians, as far as we
learn from Baxter, was, that the consent of presbyters to the bishops'
acts was not promised by the declaration, but only their advice; a
distinction apparently not very material in practice, but bearing
perhaps on the great point of controversy, whether the difference
between the two were in order or in degree. The king would not come
into the scheme of consent; though they pressed him with a passage out
of the _Icon Basilike_, where his father allowed of it. _Life of
Baxter_, 276. Some alterations, however, were made in consequence of
their suggestions.
[561] _Parl. Hist._ 141, 152. Clarendon, 76, most strangely observes
on this: "Some of the leaders brought a bill into the house for the
making that declaration a law, which was suitable to their other acts
of ingenuity to keep the church for ever under the same indulgence and
without any settlement; which being quickly perceived, there was no
further progress in it." The bill was brought in by Sir Matthew Hale.
[562] Collier, who of course thinks this declaration an encroachment
on the church, as well as on the legislative power, says, "For this
reason it was overlooked at the assizes and sessions in several places
in the country, where the dissenting ministers were indicted for not
conforming pursuant to the laws in force." P. 876. Neal confirms this,
586, and Kennet's _Register_, 374.
[563] _Life of Clarendon_, 74. A plausible and somewhat dangerous
attack had been made on the authority of this parliament from an
opposite quarter, in a pamphlet written by one Drake, under the name
of Thomas Philips, entitled "The Long Parliament Revived," and
intended to prove that by the act of the late king, providing that
they should not be dissolved but by the concurrence of the whole
legislature, they were still in existence; and that the king's demise,
which legally puts an end to a parliament, could not affect one that
was declared permanent by so direct an enactment. This argument seems
by no means inconsiderable; but the times were not such as to admit of
technical reasoning. The convention parliament, after questioning
Drake, finally sent up articles of impeachment against him; but the
Lords, after hearing him in his defence, when he confessed his fault,
left him to be prosecuted by the attorney-general. Nothing more,
probably, took place. _Parl. Hist._ 145, 157. This was in November and
December 1660: but Drake's book seems still to have been in
considerable circulation; at least I have two editions of it, both
bearing the date of 1661. The argument it contains is purely legal;
but the aim must have been to serve the presbyterian or
parliamentarian cause.
[564] Complaints of insults on the presbyterian clergy were made to
the late parliament. _Parl. Hist._ 160. The Anglicans inveighed
grossly against them on the score of their past conduct,
notwithstanding the act of indemnity. Kennet's _Register_, 616. See,
as a specimen, South's sermons, _passim_.
[565] Journals, 17th of May 1661. The previous question was moved on
this vote, but lost by 228 to 103; Morice, the secretary of state,
being one of the tellers for the minority. Monk, I believe, to whom
Morice owed his elevation, did what he could to prevent violent
measures against the presbyterians. Alderman Love was suspended from
sitting in the house July 3, for not having taken the sacrament. I
suppose that he afterwards conformed; for he became an active member
of the opposition.
[566] Journals, June 14, etc.; _Parl. Hist._ 209; _Life of Clarendon_,
71; Burnet, 230. A bill discharging the loyalists from all interest
exceeding three per cent. on debts contracted before the wars passed
the Commons; but was dropped in the other house. The great discontent
of this party at the indemnity continued to show itself in subsequent
sessions. Clarendon mentions, with much censure, that many private
bills passed about 1662, annulling conveyances of lands made during
the troubles. Pp. 162, 163. One remarkable instance ought to be
noticed, as having been greatly misrepresented. At the Earl of Derby's
seat of Knowsley in Lancashire a tablet is placed to commemorate the
ingratitude of Charles II. in having refused the royal assent to a
bill which had passed both houses for restoring the son of the Earl of
Derby, who had lost his life in the royal cause, to his family estate.
This has been so often reprinted by tourists and novelists, that it
passes currently for a just reproach on the king's memory. It was,
however, in fact one of his most honourable actions. The truth is,
that the cavalier faction carried through parliament a bill to make
void the conveyances of some manors which Lord Derby had voluntarily
sold before the restoration, in the very face of the act of indemnity,
and against all law and justice. Clarendon, who, together with some
very respectable peers, had protested against this measure in the
upper house, thought it his duty to recommend the king to refuse his
assent. Lords' Journals, Feb. 6 and May 14, 1662. There is so much to
blame in both the minister and his master, that it is but fair to give
them credit for that which the pardonable prejudices of the family
interested have led it to mis-state.
[567] Commons' Journals, 1st July 1661. A division took place,
November 26, on a motion to lay this bill aside, in consideration of
the king's proclamation, which was lost by 124 to 109: Lord Cornbury
(Clarendon's son) being a teller for the Noes. The bill was sent up to
the Lords Jan. 27, 1662. See also _Parl. Hist._ 217, 225. Some of
their proceedings trespassed upon the executive power, and infringed
the prerogative they laboured to exalt. But long interruption of the
due course of the constitution had made its boundaries indistinct.
Thus, in the convention parliament, the bodies of Cromwell, Bradshaw,
Ireton, and others, were ordered, Dec 4, on the motion of Colonel
Titus, to be disinterred, and hanged on a gibbet. The Lords concurred
in this order; but the mode of address to the king would have been
more regular. _Parl. Hist._ 151.
[568] 3 Inst. 7. This appears to have been held in Bagot's case, 9
Edw. 4. See also Higden's _View of the English Constitution_, 1709.
[569] Foster, in his _Discourse on High Treason_, evidently intimates
that he thought the conviction of Vane unjustifiable.
[570] "The relation that has been made to me of Sir H. Vane's carriage
yesterday in the Hall is the occasion of this letter, which, if I am
rightly informed, was so insolent, as to justify all he had done;
acknowledging no supreme power in England but a parliament, and many
things to that purpose. You have had a true account of all; and if he
has given new occasion to be hanged, certainly he is too dangerous a
man to let live, if we can honestly put him out of the way. Think of
this, and give me some account of it to-morrow, till when I have no
more to say to you. C." Indorsed in Lord Clarendon's hand, "The king,
June 7, 1662." Vane was beheaded June 14. Burnet (note in Oxford
edition), p. 164; Harris's _Lives_, v. 32.
[571] Vane gave up the profits of his place as treasurer of the navy,
which, according to his patent, would have amounted to £30,000 per
ann. if we may rely on Harris's _Life of Cromwell_, p. 260.
[572] 13 Car. 2, c. 1 and 6. A bill for settling the militia had been
much opposed in the convention parliament, as tending to bring in
martial law. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 145. It seems to have dropped.
[573] C. 1.
[574] C. 2. The only opposition made to this was in the House of Lords
by the Earl of Bristol and some of the Roman catholic party, who
thought the bishops would not be brought into a toleration of their
religion. _Life of Clarendon_, p. 138.
[575] C. 5.
[576] 13 Car. 2, sess. 2, c. i. This bill did not pass without a
strong opposition in the Commons. It was carried at last by 182 to 77
(Journals, July 5); but, on a previous division for its commitment the
numbers were 135 to 136. June 20. Prynne was afterwards reprimanded by
the speaker for publishing a pamphlet against this act (July 15); but
his courage had now forsaken him; and he made a submissive apology,
though the censure was pronounced in a very harsh manner.
[577] Journals, 3rd April 1662; 10th March 1663.
[578] _Parl. Hist._ 289. Clarendon speaks very unjustly of the
triennial act, forgetting that he had himself concurred in it. P. 221.
[579] 16 Car. 2, c. 1. We find by the Journals that some divisions
took place during the passage of this bill, and though, as far as
appears, on subordinate points, yet probably springing from an
opposition to its principle. March 28, 1664. There was by this time a
regular party formed against the court.
[580] P. 383.
[581] Lords' Journals, 23rd and 24th Jan. 1662.
[582] 12th Feb.
[583] 19th March 1663.
[584] 13 Car. 2, c. 12.
[585] Clarendon, in his _Life_, p. 149, says, that the king "had
received the presbyterian ministers with grace; and did believe that
he should work upon them by persuasions, having been well acquainted
with their common arguments by the conversation he had had in
Scotland, and _was very able to confute them_." This is one of the
strange absurdities into which Clarendon's prejudices hurry him in
almost every page of his writings, and more especially in this
continuation of his _Life_. Charles, as his minister well knew, could
not read a common Latin book (_Clarendon State Papers_, iii. 567), and
had no manner of acquaintance with theological learning, unless the
popular argument in favour of popery is so to be called; yet he was
very able to confute men who had passed their lives in study, on a
subject involving a considerable knowledge of Scripture and the early
writers in their original languages.
[586] Clarendon admits that this could not have been done till the
former parliament was dissolved. 97. This means, of course, on the
supposition that the king's word was to be broken. "The malignity
towards the church," he says, "seemed increasing, and to be greater
than at the coming in of the king." Pepys, in his _Diary_, has several
sharp remarks on the misconduct and unpopularity of the bishops,
though himself an episcopalian even before the restoration. "The
clergy are so high that all people I meet with do protest against
their practice." August 31, 1660. "I am convinced in my judgment, that
the present clergy will never heartily go down with the generality of
the commons of England; they have been so used to liberty and freedom,
and they are so acquainted with the pride and debauchery of the
present clergy. He [Mr. Blackburn, a nonconformist] did give me many
stories of the affronts which the clergy receive in all parts of
England from the gentry and ordinary persons of the parish." November
9, 1663. The opposite party had recourse to the old weapons of pious
fraud. I have a tract containing twenty-seven instances of remarkable
judgments, all between June 1660, and April 1661, which befell divers
persons for reading the common prayer or reviling godly ministers.
This is entitled _Annus Mirabilis_; and, besides the above
twenty-seven, attests so many prodigies, that the name is by no means
misapplied. The bishops made large fortunes by filling up leases.
Burnet, 260. And Clarendon admits them to have been too rapacious,
though he tries to extenuate. P. 48.
[587] The fullest account of this conference, and of all that passed
as to the comprehension of the presbyterians, is to be read in Baxter,
whom Neal has abridged. Some allowance must, of course, be made for
the resentment of Baxter; but his known integrity makes it impossible
to discredit the main part of his narration. Nor is it necessary to
rest on the evidence of those who may be supposed to have the
prejudices of dissenters. For Bishop Burnet admits that all the
concern which seemed to employ the prelates' minds, was not only to
make an alteration on the presbyterians' account, but to straiten the
terms of conformity far more than before the war. Those, however, who
would see what can be said by writers of high-church principles, may
consult Kennet's _History of Charles II._ p. 252, or Collier, p. 878.
One little anecdote may serve to display the spirit with which the
Anglicans came to the conference. Upon Baxter's saying that their
proceedings would alienate a great part of the _nation_, Stearne,
Bishop of Carlisle, observed to his associates: "He will not say
_kingdom_, lest he should acknowledge a king." Baxter, p. 338. This
was a very malignant reflection on a man who was well known never to
have been of the republican party. It is true that Baxter seems to
have thought, in 1659, that Richard Cromwell would have served the
turn better than Charles Stuart; and, as a presbyterian, he thought
very rightly. See p. 207, and part iii. p. 71. But, preaching before
the parliament, April 30, 1660, he said it was none of our differences
whether we should be loyal to our king; on that all were agreed. P.
217.
[588] _Life of Clarendon_, 147. He observes that the alterations made
did not reduce one of the opposite party to the obedience of the
church. Now, in the first place, he could not know this; and, in the
next, he conceals from the reader that, on the whole matter, the
changes made in the liturgy were more likely to disgust than to
conciliate. Thus the puritans having always objected to the number of
saints' days, the bishops added a few more; and the former having
given very plausible reasons against the apocryphal lessons in the
daily service, the others inserted the legend of Bel and the Dragon,
for no other purpose than to show contempt of their scruples. The
alterations may be seen in Rennet's _Register_, 585. The most
important was the restoration of a rubric inserted in the communion
service under Edward VI., but left out by Elizabeth, declaring against
any corporal presence in the Lord's supper. This gave offence to some
of those who had adopted that opinion, especially the Duke of York,
and perhaps tended to complete his alienation from the Anglican
church. Burnet, i. 183.
[589] 13 and 14 Car. 2, c. iv. § 3.
[590] _Life of Clarendon_, 152; Burnet, 256. Morley, afterwards Bishop
of Winchester, was engaged just before the restoration in negotiating
with the presbyterians. They stuck out for the negative voice of the
council of presbyters, and for the validity of their ordinations.
_Clar. State Papers_, 727. He had two schemes to get over the
difficulty; one to pass them over _sub silentio_; the other, a
hypothetical re-ordination, on the supposition that something might
have been wanting before, as the church of Rome practises about
re-baptization. The former is a curious expedient for those who
pretended to think presbyterian ordinations really null. _Id._ 738.
[591] The day fixed upon suggested a comparison which, though severe,
was obvious. A modern writer has observed on this, "They were careful
not to remember that the same day, and for the same reason, because
the tithes were commonly due at Michaelmas, had been appointed for the
former ejectment, when four times as many of the loyal clergy were
deprived for fidelity to their sovereign." Southey's _Hist. of the
Church_, ii. 467. That the day was chosen in order to deprive the
incumbent of a whole year's tithes, Mr. Southey has learned from
Burnet; and it aggravates the cruelty of the proceeding--but where has
he found his precedent? The Anglican clergy were ejected for refusing
the covenant at no one definite period, as, on recollection, Mr. S.
would be aware; nor can I find any one parliamentary ordinance in
Husband's Collection that mentions St. Bartholomew's day. There was a
precedent indeed in that case, which the government of Charles did not
choose to follow. One-fifth of the income had been reserved for the
dispossessed incumbents.
[592] Journals, April 26. This may perhaps have given rise to a
mistake we find in Neal, 624, that the act of uniformity only passed
by 186 to 180. There was no division at all upon the bill except that
I have mentioned.
[593] The report of the conference (Lords' Journals, 7th May) is
altogether rather curious.
[594] Lords' Journals, 25th and 27th July 1663; Ralph, 58.
[595] Neal, 625-636. Baxter told Burnet, as the latter says (p. 185),
that not above 300 would have resigned, had the terms of the king's
declaration been adhered to. The blame, he goes on, fell chiefly on
Sheldon. But Clarendon was charged with entertaining the presbyterians
with good words, while he was giving way to the bishops. See also p.
268. Baxter puts the number of the deprived at 1800. _Life_, 384. And
it has generally been reckoned about 2000; though Burnet says it has
been much controverted. If indeed we can rely on Calamy's account of
the ejected ministers, abridged by Palmer under the title of _The
Nonconformist's Memorial_, the number must have been full 2400.
Kennet, however (_Register_, 807), notices great mistakes of Calamy in
respect only to one diocese, that of Peterborough. Probably both in
this collection, and in that of Walker on the other side, as in all
martyrologies, there are abundant errors; but enough will remain to
afford memorable examples of conscientious suffering; and we cannot
read without indignation Rennet's endeavours, in the conclusion of
this volume, to extenuate the praise of the deprived presbyterians by
captious and unfair arguments.
[596] See Clarendon's feeble attempt to vindicate the king from the
charge of breach of faith. 157.
[597] A list of these, published in 1660, contains more than 170
names. Neal, 590.
[598] Sir Kenelm Digby was supposed to be deep in a scheme that the
catholics, in 1649, should support the commonwealth with all their
power, in return for liberty of religion. Carte's _Letters_, i. 216
_et post_. We find a letter from him to Cromwell in 1656 (Thurloe, iv.
591) with great protestations of duty.
[599] See Lords' Journals, June and July 1661, or extracts from them
in Kennet's _Register_, 469, etc., 620, etc., and 798, where are
several other particulars worthy of notice. Clarendon, 143, explains
the failure of this attempt at a partial toleration (for it was only
meant as to the exercise of religious rites in private houses) by the
persevering opposition of the Jesuits to the oath of allegiance, to
which the lay catholics, and generally the secular priests, had long
ceased to make objection. The house had voted that the indulgence
should not extend to Jesuits, and that they would not alter the oaths
of allegiance or supremacy. The Jesuits complained of the distinction
taken against them; and asserted, in a printed tract (Kennet, _ubi
supra_), that since 1616 they had been inhibited by their superiors
from maintaining the pope's right to depose sovereigns. See also
Butler's _Mem. of Catholics_, ii. 27; iv. 142; and Burnet, i. 194.
[600] The suspicions against Charles were very strong in England
before the restoration, so as to alarm his emissaries: "Your master,"
Mordaunt writes to Ormond, Nov. 10, 1659, "is utterly ruined as to his
interest here in whatever party, if this be true." Carte's _Letters_,
ii. 264, and _Clar. State Papers_, iii. 602. But an anecdote related
in Carte's _Life of Ormond_, ii. 255, and Harris's _Lives_, v. 54,
which has obtained some credit, proves, if true, that he had embraced
the Roman catholic religion as early as 1659, so as even to attend
mass. This cannot be reckoned out of question; but the tendency of the
king's mind before his return to England is to be inferred from all
his behaviour. Kennet (_Complete Hist. of Eng._ iii. 237) plainly
insinuates that the project for restoring popery began at the treaty
of the Pyrenees; and see his _Register_, p. 852.
[601] 13 Car. 2, c. 1.
[602] Burnet, i. 179.
[603] _Life of Clarendon_, 159. He intimates that this begot a
coldness in the bishops towards himself, which was never fully
removed. Yet he had no reason to complain of them on his trial. See,
too, Pepys's _Diary_, Sept. 3, 1662.
[604] _Parl. Hist._ 257.
[605] Baxter intimates (429) that some disagreement arose between the
presbyterians and independents as to the toleration of popery, or
rather, as he puts it, as to the active concurrence of the protestant
dissenters in accepting such a toleration as should include popery.
The latter, conformably to their general principles, were favourable
to it; but the former would not make themselves parties to any
relaxation of the penal laws against the church of Rome, leaving the
king to act as he thought fit. By this stiffness it is very probable
that they provoked a good deal of persecution from the court, which
they might have avoided by falling into its views of a general
indulgence.
[606] _Parl. Hist._ 260. An adjournment had been moved, and lost by
161 to 119. Journals, 25 Feb.
[607] 19 Feb. Baxter, p. 429.
[608] Journals, 17 and 28 March 1663; _Parl. Hist._ 264. Burnet, 274,
says the declaration of indulgence was usually ascribed to Bristol,
but in fact proceeded from the king, and that the opposition to it in
the house was chiefly made by the friends of Clarendon. The latter
tells us in his _Life_, 189, that the king was displeased at the
insolence of the Romish party, and gave the judges general orders to
convict recusants. The minister and historian either was, or pretended
to be, his master's dupe; and, if he had any suspicions of what was
meant as to religion (as he must surely have had), is far too loyal to
hint them. Yet the one circumstance he mentions soon after, that the
Countess of Castlemaine suddenly declared herself a catholic, was
enough to open his eyes and those of the world.
The Romish partisans assumed the tone of high loyalty, as exclusively
characteristic of their religion; but affected, at this time, to use
great civility towards the church of England. A book, entitled
_Philanax Anglicus_, published under the name of Bellamy, the second
edition of which is in 1663, after a most flattering dedication to
Sheldon, launches into virulent abuse of the presbyterians and of the
reformation in general, as founded on principles adverse to monarchy.
This indeed was common with the ultra or high-church party; but the
work in question, though it purports to be written by a clergyman, is
manifestly a shaft from the concealed bow of the Roman Apollo.
[609] See proofs of this in Ralph, 53; Rapin, p. 78. There was in 1663
a trifling insurrection in Yorkshire, which the government wished to
have been more serious, so as to afford a better pretext for strong
measures; as may be collected from a passage in a letter of Bennet to
the Duke of Ormond, where he says, "The country was in a greater
readiness to prevent the disorders than perhaps were to be wished; but
it being the effect of their own care, rather than his majesty's
commands, it is the less to be censured." Clarendon, 218, speaks of
this as an important and extensive conspiracy; and the king dwelt on
it in his next speech to the parliament. _Parl. Hist._ 289.
[610] 16 Car. 2, c. 4. A similar bill had passed the Commons in July
1663, but hung some time in the upper house, and was much debated; the
Commons sent up a message (an irregular practice of those times) to
request their lordships would expedite this and some other bills. The
king seems to have been displeased at this delay; for he told them at
their prorogation, that he had expected some bills against
conventicles and distempers in religion, as well as the growth of
popery, and should himself present some at their next meeting. _Parl.
Hist._ 288. Burnet observes, that to empower a justice of peace to
convict without a jury, was thought a great breach on the principles
of the English constitution. 285.
[611] P. 221.
[612] 17 Car. 2, c. 2.
[613] Burnet; Baxter, Part III. p. 2; Neal, p. 652.
[614] Burnet: Baxter.
[615] Mr. Locke, in the "Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend
in the Country," printed in 1675 (see it in his works, or in
_Parliamentary History_, vol. iv. Appendix, No. 5), says it was lost
by three votes, and mentions the persons. But the numbers in the
Journals, October 27, 1665, appear to be 57 to 51. Probably he meant
that those persons might have been expected to vote the other way.
[616] A pamphlet, with Baxter's name subscribed, called "Fair Warning,
or XXV Reasons against Toleration and Indulgence of Popery," 1663, is
a pleasant specimen of this _argumentum ab inferno_. "Being there is
but one safe way to salvation, do you think that the protestant way is
that way, or is it not? If it be not, why do you live in it? If it be,
how can you find in your heart to give your subjects liberty to go
another way? Can you, in your conscience, give them leave to go on in
that course in which, in your conscience, you think you could not be
saved?" Baxter, however, does not mention this little book in his
life; nor does he there speak violently about the toleration of
Romanists.
[617] The clergy had petitioned the House of Commons in 1664, _inter
alia_, "That for the better observation of the Lord's day, and for the
promoting of conformity, you would be pleased to advance the pecuniary
mulct of twelve pence for each absence from divine service, in
proportion to the degree, quality, and ability of the delinquent; that
so the penalty may be of force sufficient to conquer the obstinacy of
the nonconformists." Wilkin's _Concilia_, iv. 580. Letters from
Sheldon to the commissary of the diocese of Canterbury, in 1669 and
1670, occur in the same collection (pp. 588, 589) directing him to
inquire about conventicles; and if they cannot be restrained by
ecclesiastical authority, to apply to the next justice of peace in
order to put them down. A proclamation appears also from the king,
enjoining magistrates to do this. In 1673, the archbishop writes a
circular to his suffragans, directing them to proceed against such as
keep schools without licence. P. 593.
See in the _Somers Tracts_, vii. 586, a "true and faithful narrative"
of the severities practised against nonconformists about this time.
Baxter's _Life_ is also full of proofs of persecution; but the most
complete register is in Calamy's account of the ejected clergy.
[618] Pepys observes, 12 July 1667, "how everybody nowadays reflect
upon Oliver and commend him, what brave things he did, and made all
the neighbour princes fear him."
[619] The _Mémoires de Grammont_ are known to everybody; and are
almost unique in their kind, not only for the grace of their style and
the vivacity of their pictures, but for the happy ignorance in which
the author seems to have lived, that any one of his readers could
imagine that there are such things as virtue and principle in the
world. In the delirium of thoughtless voluptuousness they resemble
some of the memoirs about the end of Louis XV.'s reign, and somewhat
later; though I think, even in these, there is generally some effort,
here and there, at moral censure, or some affectation of sensibility.
_They_, indeed, have always an awful moral; and in the light portraits
of the court of Versailles (such, sometimes, as we might otherwise
almost blush to peruse) we have before us the handwriting on the wall,
the winter whirlwind hushed in its grim repose, and expecting its
prey, the vengeance of an oppressed people and long-forbearing Deity.
No such retribution fell on the courtiers of Charles II.; but they
earned in their own age, what has descended to posterity, though
possibly very indifferent to themselves, the disgust and aversion of
all that was respectable among mankind.
[620] This was carried on a division by 172 to 102. Journals, 25
November 1665. It was to be raised "in a regulated subsidiary way,
reducing the same to a certainty in all counties, so as no person, for
his real or personal estate, be exempted." They seem to have had some
difficulty in raising this enormous subsidy. _Parliamentary History_,
305.
[621] 17 Car. II. c. 1. The same clause is repeated next year, and has
become regular.
[622] _Life of Clarendon_, p. 315; Hatsell's _Precedents_, iii. 80.
[623] _Life of Clarendon_, p. 368. Burnet observes it was looked upon
at the time as a great innovation. P. 335.
[624] Pepys's _Diary_ has lately furnished some things worthy to be
extracted. "Mr. W. and I by water to Whitehall, and there at Sir
George Carteret's lodgings Sir William Coventry met; and we did debate
the whole business of our accounts to the parliament; where it appears
to us that the charge of the war from Sept. 1, 1664, to this
Michaelmas will have been but £3,200,000, and we have paid in that
time somewhat about £2,200,000, so that we owe about £900,000; but our
method of accounting, though it cannot, I believe, be far wide from
the mark, yet will not abide a strict examination, if the parliament
should be troublesome. Here happened a pretty question of Sir William
Coventry, whether this account of ours will not put my lord treasurer
to a difficulty to tell what is become of all the money the parliament
have given in this time for the war, which hath amounted to about
£4,000,000, which nobody there could answer; but I perceive they did
doubt what his answer could be." Sept. 23, 1666.--The money granted
the king for the war he afterwards (Oct. 10) reckons at £5,590,000,
and the debt £900,000. The charge stated only at £3,200,000. "So what
is become of all this sum, £2,390,000!" He mentions afterwards (Oct.
8) the proviso in the poll-tax bill, that there shall be a committee
of nine persons to have the inspection on oath of all the accounts of
the money given and spent for the war, "which makes the king and court
mad; the king having given order to my lord chamberlain to send to the
play-houses and brothels, to bid all the parliament men that were
there to go to the parliament presently; but it was carried against
the court by thirty or forty voices." It was thought, he says (Dec.
12) that above £400,000 had gone into the privy purse since the war.
[625] _Life of Clarendon_, p. 392.
[626] 19 and 20 Car. II. c. 1. Burnet, p. 374. They reported
unaccounted balances of £1,509,161, besides much that was questionable
in the payments. But, according to Ralph, p. 177, the commissioners
had acted with more technical rigour than equity, surcharging the
accountants for all sums not expended since the war began, though
actually expended for the purposes of preparation.
[627] Burnet, p. 130. Southampton left all the business of the
treasury, according to Burnet, p. 131, in the hands of Sir Philip
Warwick, "a weak but incorrupt man." The king, he says, chose to put
up with his contradiction rather than make him popular by dismissing
him. But in fact, as we see by Clarendon's instance, the king retained
his ministers long after he was displeased with them. Southampton's
remissness and slowness, notwithstanding his integrity, Pepys says,
was the cause of undoing the nation as much as anything; "yet, if I
knew all the difficulties he has lain under, and his instrument Sir
Philip Warwick, I might be of another mind." May 16, 1667.--He was
willing to have done something, Clarendon tells us (p. 415) to gratify
the presbyterians; on which account, the bishops thought him not
enough affected to the church. His friend endeavours to extenuate this
heinous sin of tolerant principles.
[628] The behaviour of Lord Clarendon on this occasion was so
extraordinary, that no credit could have been given to any other
account than his own. The Duke of York, he says, informed the king of
the affection and friendship that had long been between him and the
young lady; that they had been long contracted, and that she was with
child; and therefore requested his majesty's leave that he might
publicly marry her. The Marquis of Ormond by the king's order
communicated this to the chancellor, who "broke out into an immoderate
passion against the wickedness of his daughter; and said, with all
imaginable earnestness, that as soon as he came home, he would turn
her out of his house as a strumpet to shift for herself, and would
never see her again. They told him that his passion was too violent to
administer good counsel to him; that they thought that the duke was
married to his daughter, and that there were other measures to be
taken than those which the disorder he was in had suggested to him.
Whereupon he fell into new commotions; and said, If that were true, he
was well prepared to advise what was to be done; that he had much
rather his daughter should be the duke's whore than his wife: in the
former case, nobody could blame him for the resolution he had taken,
for he was not obliged to keep a whore for the greatest prince alive;
and the indignity to himself he would submit to the good pleasure of
God. But, if there were any reason to suspect the other, he was ready
to give a positive judgment, in which he hoped their lordships would
concur with him, that the king should immediately cause the woman _to
be sent to the Tower and cast into a dungeon_, under so strict a guard
that no person living should be admitted to come to her; and then that
_an act of parliament should be immediately passed for cutting off her
head, to which he would not only give his consent, but would very
willingly be the first man that should propose it_. And whoever knew
the man, will believe that he said all this very heartily." Lord
Southampton, he proceeds to inform us, on the king's entering the room
at the time, said very naturally, that the chancellor was mad, and had
proposed such extravagant things that he was no more to be consulted
with. This, however, did not bring him to his senses; for he repeated
his strange proposal of "sending her presently to the Tower, and the
rest;" imploring the king to take this course, as the only expedient
that could free him from the evils that this business would otherwise
bring upon him.
That any man of sane intellects should fall into such an extravagance
of passion, is sufficiently wonderful; that he should sit down in cool
blood several years afterwards to relate it, is still more so; and
perhaps we shall carry our candour to an excess, if we do not set down
the whole scene to overacted hypocrisy. Charles II., we may be very
sure, could see it in no other light. And here I must take notice, by
the way, of the singular observation the worthy editor of Burnet has
made: "King Charles's conduct in this business was excellent
throughout; that of Clarendon _worthy an ancient Roman_." We have
indeed a Roman precedent for subduing the sentiments of nature rather
than permitting a daughter to incur disgrace through the passions of
the great; but I think Virginius would not quite have understood the
feelings of Clarendon. Such virtue was more like what Montesquieu
calls "l'héroïsme de l'esclavage," and was just fit for the court of
Gondar. But with all this violence that he records of himself, he
deviates greatly from the truth: "The king (he says) afterwards spoke
every day about it, and told the chancellor that he must behave
himself wisely, for that the thing was remediless, and that his
majesty knew that they were married; which would quickly appear to all
men who knew that nothing could be done upon it. In this time the
chancellor had conferred with his daughter, without anything of
indulgence, and not only discovered that they were unquestionably
married, but _by whom, and who were present at it, who would be ready
to avow it_; which pleased him not, though it diverted him from using
some of that rigour which he intended. And he saw no other remedy
could be applied but that which he had proposed to the king, who
thought of nothing like it." _Life of Clarendon_, 29 _et post_.
Every one would conclude from this, that a marriage had been
solemnised if not before their arrival in England, yet before the
chancellor had this conference with his daughter. It appears, however,
from the Duke of York's declaration in the books of the privy council,
quoted by Ralph, p. 40, that he was contracted to Ann Hyde on the 24th
of November 1659, at Breda; and after that time lived with her as his
wife, though very secretly; he married her 3rd Sept. 1660, according
to the English ritual, Lord Ossory giving her away. The first child
was born Oct. 22, 1660. Now whether the contract were sufficient to
constitute a valid marriage, will depend on two things; first, upon
the law existing at Breda; secondly, upon the applicability of what is
commonly called the rule of the _lex loci_, to a marriage between such
persons according to the received notions of English lawyers in that
age. But, even admitting all this, it is still manifest that
Clarendon's expressions point to an actual celebration, and are
consequently intended to mislead the reader. Certain it is, that at
the time the contract seems to have been reckoned only an honorary
obligation. James tells us himself (Macpherson's _Extracts_, p. 17)
that he promised to marry her; and "though when he asked the king for
his leave, he refused and dissuaded him from it, yet at last he
opposed it no more, and the duke married her privately, and owned it
some time after." His biographer, writing from his own manuscript,
adds, "it may well be supposed that my lord chancellor did his part,
but with great caution and circumspection, to soften the king in that
matter which in every respect seemed so much for his own advantage."
_Life of James_, 387. And Pepys inserts in his diary, Feb. 23, 1661,
"Mr. H. told me how my lord chancellor had lately got the Duke of York
and duchess, and her woman, my Lord Ossory and a doctor, to make oath
before most of the judges of the kingdom, concerning all the
circumstances of their marriage. And, in fine, it is confessed that
they were not fully married till about a month or two before she was
brought to bed; but that they were contracted long before, and [were
married] time enough for the child to be legitimate. But I do not hear
that it was put to the judges to determine so or not." He had said
before that Lord Sandwich told him (17th Oct. 1660) "the king wanted
him [the duke] to marry her, but he would not." This seems at first
sight inconsistent with what James says himself. But at this time,
though the private marriage had really taken place, he had been
persuaded by a most infamous conspiracy of some profligate courtiers
that the lady was of a licentious character, and that Berkeley,
afterwards Lord Falmouth, had enjoyed her favours. _Life of
Clarendon_, 33. It must be presumed that those men knew only of a
contract which they thought he could break. Hamilton, in the _Memoirs
of Grammont_, speaks of this transaction with his usual levity, though
the parties showed themselves as destitute of spirit as of honour and
humanity. Clarendon, we must believe (and the most favourable
hypothesis for him is to give up his veracity), would not permit his
daughter to be made the victim of a few perjured debauchees, and of
her husband's fickleness or credulity.
[629] Hamilton mentions this as the current rumour of the court, and
Burnet has done the same. But Clarendon himself denies that he had any
concern in it, or any acquaintance with the parties. He wrote in too
humble a strain to the king on the subject. _Life of Clar._ p. 454.
[630] Burnet says that Southampton had come into a scheme of obtaining
£2,000,000 as the annual revenue; which was prevented by Clarendon,
lest it should put the king out of need of parliaments. This the king
found out, and hated him mortally for it. P. 223. It is the fashion to
discredit all Burnet says. But observe what we may read in Pepys: "Sir
W. Coventry did tell me it as the wisest thing that was ever said to
the king by any statesman of his time; and it was by my lord treasurer
that is dead, whom, I find, he takes for a very great statesman, that
when the king did show himself forward for passing the act of
indemnity, he did advise the king that he would hold his hand in doing
it, till he had got his power restored that had been diminished by the
late times, and his revenue settled in such a manner as he might
depend upon himself without resting upon parliaments, and then pass
it. But my lord chancellor, who thought he could have the command of
parliaments for ever, because for the king's sake they were awhile
willing to grant all the king desired, did press for its being done;
and so it was, and the king from that time able to do nothing with the
parliament almost." March 20, 1669. Rari quippe boni! Neither
Southampton nor Coventry make the figure in this extract we should
wish to find; yet who were their superiors for integrity and
patriotism under Charles II.? Perhaps Pepys, like most gossiping men,
was not always correct.
[631] Macpherson's _Extracts from Life of James_, 17, 18. Compare
Innes's _Life of James_, published by Clarke, i. 391, 393. In the
former work it is said that Clarendon, upon Venner's insurrection,
advised that the guards should not be disbanded. But this seems to be
a mistake in copying: for Clarendon read the Duke of York. Pepys,
however, who heard all the gossip of the town, mentions the year
after, that the chancellor thought of raising an army, with the duke
as general. Dec. 22, 1661.
[632] _Ibid._
[633] The Earl of Bristol, with all his constitutional precipitancy,
made a violent attack on Clarendon, by exhibiting articles of treason
against him in the House of Lords in 1663; believing, no doubt, that
the schemes of the intriguers were more mature, and the king more
alienated, than was really the case; and thus disgraced himself at
court instead of his enemy. _Parl. Hist._ 276; _Life of Clar._ 209.
Before this time Pepys had heard that the chancellor had lost the
king's favour, and that Bristol, with Buckingham and two or three
more, ruled him. May 15, 1663.
[634] A motion to refer the heads of charge against Clarendon to a
committee was lost by 194 to 128; Seymour and Osborne telling the
noes, Birch and Clarges the ayes. Commons' Journals, Nov. 6, 1667.
These names show how parties ran, Seymour and Osborne being
high-flying cavaliers, and Birch a presbyterian. A motion that he be
impeached for treason on the first article was lost by 172 to 103, the
two former tellers for the ayes: Nov. 9. In the Harleian MS. 881, we
have a copious account of the debates on this occasion, and a
transcript in No. 1218. Sir Heneage Finch spoke much against the
charge of treason; Maynard seems to have done the same. A charge of
secret correspondence with Cromwell was introduced merely _ad
invidiam_, the prosecutors admitting that it was pardoned by the act
of indemnity, but wishing to make the chancellor plead that: Maynard
and Hampden opposed it, and it was given up out of shame without a
vote. Vaughan, afterwards chief justice, argued that counselling the
king to govern by a standing army was treason at common law, and seems
to dispute what Finch laid down most broadly, that there can be no
such thing as a common law treason; relying on a passage in Glanvill,
where "seductio domini regis" is said to be treason. Maynard stood up
for the opposite doctrine. Waller and Vaughan argued that the sale of
Dunkirk was treason, but the article passed without declaring it to be
so; nor would the word have appeared probably in the impeachment, if a
young Lord Vaughan had not asserted that he could prove Clarendon to
have betrayed the king's councils, on which an article to that effect
was carried by 161 to 89. Garraway and Littleton were forward against
the chancellor; but Coventry seems to have taken no great part. See
Pepys's _Diary_, Dec. 3rd and 6th, 1667. Baxter also says that the
presbyterians were by no means strenuous against Clarendon, but rather
the contrary, fearing that worse might come for the country, as giving
him credit for having kept off military government. Baxter's _Life_,
part iii. 21. This is very highly to the honour of that party whom he
had so much oppressed, if not betrayed. "It was a notable providence
of God, he says, that this man, who had been the great instrument of
state, and done almost all, and had dealt so cruelly with the
nonconformists should thus by his own friends be cast out and
banished; while those that he had persecuted were the most moderate in
his cause, and many for him. And it was a great ease that befel the
good people throughout the land by his dejection. For his way was to
decoy men into conspiracies or to pretend plots, and upon the rumour
of a plot the innocent people of many countries were laid in prison,
so that no man knew when he was safe. Whereas since then, though laws
have been made more and more severe, yet a man knoweth a little better
what he is to expect, when it is by a law that he is to be tried."
Sham plots there seem to have been; but it is not reasonable to charge
Clarendon with inventing them. Ralph, 122.
[635] In his wrath against the proviso inserted by Sir George Downing,
as above mentioned, in the bill of supply, Clarendon told him, as he
confesses, that the king could never be well served, while fellows of
his condition were admitted to speak as much as they had a mind; and
that in the best times such presumptions had been punished with
imprisonment by the lords of the council, without the king's taking
notice of it. 321. The king was naturally displeased at this insolent
language towards one of his servants, a man who has filled an eminent
station, and done services, for a suggestion intended to benefit the
revenue. And it was a still more flagrant affront to the House of
Commons, of which Downing was a member, and where he had proposed this
clause, and induced the house to adopt it.
Coventry told Pepys "many things about the chancellor's dismissal, not
fit to be spoken; and yet not any unfaithfulness to the king, but
_instar omnium_, that he was so great at the council-board and in the
administration of matters there was no room for anybody to propose any
remedy for what was amiss, or to compass anything, though never so
good for the kingdom, unless approved of by the chancellor; he
managing all things with that greatness which now will be removed,
that the king may have the benefit of others' advice." Sept. 2, 1667.
His own memoirs are full of proofs of this haughtiness and
intemperance. He set himself against Sir William Coventry, and speaks
of a man as able and virtuous as himself with marked aversion. See too
_Life of James_, 398. Coventry, according to this writer (431), was
the chief actor in Clarendon's impeachment, but this seems to be a
mistake; though he was certainly desirous of getting him out of place.
The king, Clarendon tells us (438), pretended that the anger of
parliament was such, and their power too, as it was not in his power
to save him. The fallen minister desired him not to fear the power of
parliament, "which was more or less, or nothing, as he pleased to make
it." So preposterous as well as unconstitutional a way of talking
could not but aggravate his unpopularity with that great body he
pretended to contemn.
[636] _State Trials_, vi. 318; _Parl. Hist._
[637] Ludlow, iii. 118, 165 _et post_; Clarendon's _Life_, 290;
Burnet, 226; _Oeuvres de Louis XIV._ ii. 204.
[638] Harris's _Lives_, v. 28; _Biogr. Brit._ art. Harrington; _Life
of James_, 396; _Somers Tracts_, vii. 530, 534.
[639] See Kennet's _Register_, 757; Ralph, 78 _et post_; Harris's
_Lives_, v. 182, for proofs of this.
[640] _Mem. of Hutchinson_, 303. It seems, however, that he was
suspected of some concern with an intended rising in 1663, though
nothing was proved against him. _Miscellanea Aulica_, 319.
[641] _Life of Clarendon_, 424. Pepys says, the parliament was called
together "against the Duke of York's mind flatly, who did rather
advise the king to raise money as he pleased; and against the
chancellor, who told the king that Queen Elizabeth did do all her
business in 1588 without calling a parliament, and so might he do for
anything he saw." June 25, 1667. He probably got this from his friend
Sir W. Coventry.
[642] Ralph, 78, etc. The overture came from Clarendon, the French
having no expectation of it. The worst was that, just before, he had
dwelt in a speech to parliament on the importance of Dunkirk. This was
on May 19, 1662. It appears by Louis XIV.'s own account, which
certainly does not tally with some other authorities, that Dunkirk had
been so great an object with Cromwell, that it was the stipulated
price of the English alliance. Louis, however, was vexed at this, and
determined to recover it at any price: il est certain que je ne
pouvois trop donner pour racheter Dunkerque. He sent d'Estrades
accordingly to England in 1661, directing him to make this his great
object. Charles told the ambassador that Spain had made him great
offers, but he would rather treat with France. Louis was delighted at
this; and though the sum asked was considerable, 5,000,000 livres, he
would not break off, but finally concluded the treaty for 4,000,000,
payable in three years; nay, saved 500,000 without its being found out
by the English, for a banker having offered them prompt payment at
this discount, they gladly accepted it; but this banker was a person
employed by Louis himself, who had the money ready. He had the
greatest anxiety about this affair; for the city of London deputed the
lord mayor to offer any sum so that Dunkirk might not be alienated.
_Oeuvres de Louis XIV._ i. 167. If this be altogether correct, the
King of France did not fancy he had made so bad a bargain; and indeed,
with his projects, if he had the money to spare, he could not think
so. Compare the _Mémoires d'Estrades_, and the supplement to the third
volume of _Clarendon State Papers_. The historians are of no value,
except as they copy from some of these original testimonies.
[643] _Life of Clar._ 78; _Life of James_, 393.
[644] See Supplement to third volume of _Clarendon State Papers_, for
abundant evidence of the close connection between the courts of France
and England. The former offered bribes to Lord Clarendon so frequently
and unceremoniously, that one is disposed to think he did not show so
much indignation at the first overture as he ought to have done. See
pp. 1, 4, 13. The aim of Louis was to effect the match with Catharine.
Spain would have given a great portion with any protestant princess,
in order to break it. Clarendon asked, on his master's account, for
£50,000, to avoid application to parliament. P. 4. The French offered
a secret loan, or subsidy perhaps, of 2,000,000 livres for the succour
of Portugal. This was accepted by Clarendon (p. 15); but I do not find
anything more about it.
[645] As no one, who regards with attachment the present system of the
English constitution, can look upon Lord Clarendon as an excellent
minister, or a friend to the soundest principles of civil and
religious liberty; so no man whatever can avoid considering his
incessant deviations from the great duties of an historian as a moral
blemish in his character. He dares very frequently to say what is not
true, and what he must have known to be otherwise; he does not dare to
say what is true. And it is almost an aggravation of this reproach,
that he aimed to deceive posterity, and poisoned at the fountain a
stream from which another generation was to drink. No defence has ever
been set up for the fidelity of Clarendon's history; nor can men, who
have sifted the authentic materials, entertain much difference of
judgment in this respect; though, as a monument of powerful ability
and impressive eloquence, it will always be read with that delight
which we receive from many great historians, especially the ancient,
independent of any confidence in their veracity.
One more instance, before we quit Lord Clarendon for ever, may here be
mentioned of his disregard for truth. The strange tale of a fruitless
search after the restoration for the body of Charles I. is well known.
Lord Southampton and Lindsey, he tells us, who had assisted at their
master's obsequies in St. George's chapel at Windsor, were so overcome
with grief, that they could not recognise the place of interment; and,
after several vain attempts, the search was abandoned in despair.
_Hist. of Rebellion_, vi. 244. Whatever motive the noble historian may
have had for this story, it is absolutely incredible that any such
ineffectual search was ever made. Nothing could have been more easy
than to have taken up the pavement of the choir. But this was
unnecessary. Some at least of the workmen employed must have
remembered the place of the vault. Nor did it depend on them; for Sir
Thomas Herbert, who was present, had made at the time a note of the
spot, "just opposite the eleventh stall on the king's side." Herbert's
_Memoirs_, 142. And we find from Pepys's _Diary_, Feb. 26, 1666, that
"he was shown, at Windsor, where the late king was buried, and King
Henry VIII. and my Lady Seymour." In which spot, as is well known, the
royal body has twice been found, once in the reign of Anne, and again
in 1813.
[646] The tenor of Clarendon's life and writings almost forbids any
surmise of pecuniary corruption. Yet this is insinuated by Pepys, on
the authority of Evelyn, April 27 and May 16, 1667. But the one was
gossiping, though shrewd; and the other feeble, though accomplished.
Lord Dartmouth, who lived in the next age, and whose splenetic humour
makes him no good witness against anybody, charges him with receiving
bribes from the main instruments and promoters of the late troubles,
and those who had plundered the royalists, which enabled him to build
his great mansion in Piccadilly; asserting that it was full of
pictures belonging to families who had been despoiled of them. "And
whoever had a mind to see what great families had been plundered
during the civil war, might find some remains either at Clarendon
House or at Cornbury." Note on Burnet, 88.
The character of Clarendon, as a minister, is fairly and judiciously
drawn by Macpherson, _Hist. of England_, 98; a work by no means so
full of a tory spirit as has been supposed.
[647] _Parl. Hist._ 347.
[648] The Lords refused to commit the Earl of Clarendon on a general
impeachment of high treason; and in a conference with the lower house,
denied the authority of the precedent in Strafford's case, which was
pressed upon them. It is remarkable that the managers of this
conference for the Commons vindicated the first proceedings of the
long parliament, which shows a considerable change in their tone since
1661. They do not, however, seem to have urged, what is an apparent
distinction between the two precedents, that the commitment of
Strafford was on a verbal request of Pym in the name of the Commons,
without alleging any special matter of treason, and consequently
irregular and illegal; while the 16th article of Clarendon's
impeachment charges him with betraying the king's counsels to his
enemies; which, however untrue, evidently amounted to treason within
the statute of Edward III.; so that the objection of the Lords
extended to committing any one for treason upon impeachment, without
all the particularity required in an indictment. This showed a very
commendable regard to the liberty of the subject; and from this time
we do not find the vague and unintelligible accusations, whether of
treason or misdemeanour, so usual in former proceedings of parliament.
_Parl. Hist._ 387. A protest was signed by Buckingham, Albemarle,
Bristol, Arlington, and others of their party, including three bishops
(Cosins, Croft, and another), against the refusal of their house to
commit Clarendon upon the general charge. A few, on the other hand, of
whom Hollis is the only remarkable name, protested against the bill of
banishment.
"The most fatal blow (says James) the king gave himself to his power
and prerogative, was when he sought aid from the House of Commons to
destroy the Earl of Clarendon: by that he put that house again in mind
of their impeaching privilege, which had been wrested out of their
hands by the restoration; and when ministers found they were like to
be left to the censure of the parliament, it made them have a greater
attention to court an interest there than to pursue that of their
princes, from whom they hoped not for so sure a support." _Life of
James_, 593.
The king, it is said, came rather slowly into the measure of
impeachment; but became afterwards so eager, as to give the
attorney-general, Finch, positive orders to be active in it, observing
him to be silent. Carte's _Ormond_, ii. 353. Buckingham had made the
king great promises of what the Commons would do, in case he would
sacrifice Clarendon.
[649] Kennet, 293, 300. Burnet; Baxter, 23. The design was to act on
the principle of the declaration of 1660, so that presbyterian
ordinations should pass _sub modo_. Tillotson and Stillingfleet were
concerned in it. The king was at this time exasperated against the
bishops for their support of Clarendon. Burnet, _ibid._; Pepys's
_Diary_, 21st Dec. 1667. And he had also deeper motives.
[650] _Parl. Hist._ 421; Ralph, 170; Carte's _Life of Ormond_, ii.
362. Sir Thomas Littleton spoke in favour of the comprehension, as did
Seymour and Waller; all of them enemies of Clarendon, and probably
connected with the Buckingham faction: but the church party was much
too strong for them. Pepys says the Commons were furious against the
project; it was said that whoever proposed new laws about religion
must do it with a rope about his neck. Jan. 10, 1668. This is the
first instance of a triumph obtained by the church over the Crown in
the House of Commons. Ralph observes upon it, "It is not for nought
that the words church and state are so often coupled together, and
that the first has so insolently usurped the precedency of the last."
[651] _Parl. Hist._ 422.
[652] France retained Lille, Tournay, Douay, Charleroi, and other
places by the treaty. The allies were surprised, and not pleased at
the choice Spain made of yielding these towns in order to save Franche
Comté. Temple's _Letters_, 97. In fact, they were not on good terms
with that power; she had even a project, out of spite to Holland, of
giving up the Netherlands entirely to France, in exchange for
Rousillon, but thought better of it on cooler reflection.
[653] Dalrymple, ii. 5 _et post_. Temple was not treated very
favourably by most of the ministers on his return from concluding the
triple alliance: Clifford said to a friend, "Well, for all this noise,
we must yet have another war with the Dutch before it be long."
Temple's _Letters_, 123.
[654] Dalrymple, ii. 12.
[655] Burnet.
[656] _Life of Clarendon_, 357.
[657] _Life of Clarendon_, 355.
[658] _State Trials_, vi. 807. One of the oddest things connected with
this fire was, that some persons of the fanatic party had been hanged,
in April, for a conspiracy to surprise the Tower, murder the Duke of
Albemarle and others, and then declare for an equal division of lands,
etc. In order to effect this, the city was to be fired, and the guards
secured in their quarters and for this the 3rd of September following
was fixed upon as a lucky day. This is undoubtedly to be read in the
_London Gazette_ for April 30, 1666; and it is equally certain that
the city was in flames on the 3rd of September. But, though the
coincidence is curious, it would be very weak to think it more than a
coincidence, for the same reason as applies to the suspicion which the
catholics incurred; that the mere destruction of the city could not
have been the object of any party, and that nothing was attempted to
manifest any further design.
[659] Macpherson's _Extracts_, 38, 49; _Life of James_, 426.
[660] He tells us himself that it began by his reading a book written
by a learned bishop of the church of England to clear her from schism
in leaving the Roman communion, which had a contrary effect on him;
especially when, at the said bishop's desire, he read an answer to it.
This made him inquisitive about the grounds and manner of the
reformation. _After his return_, Heylin's _History of the
Reformation_, and the preface to Hooker's _Ecclesiastical Polity_,
thoroughly convinced him that neither the church of England, nor
Calvin, nor any of the reformers, had power to do what they did; and
he was confident, he said, that whosoever reads those two books with
attention and without prejudice, would be of the same opinion. _Life
of James_, i. 629. The Duchess of York embraced the same creed as her
husband, and, as he tells us, without knowledge of his sentiments, but
one year before her death in 1670. She left a paper at her death
containing the reasons for her change. See it in Kennet, 320. It is
plain that she, as well as the duke, had been influenced by the
Romanising tendency of some Anglican divines.
[661] Macpherson, 50; _Life of James_, 441.
[662] De Witt was apprised of the intrigue between France and England
as early as April 1669, through a Swedish agent at Paris. Temple, 179.
Temple himself, in the course of that year, became convinced that the
king's views were not those of his people, and reflects severely on
his conduct in a letter, December 24, 1669. P. 206. In September 1670,
on his sudden recall from the Hague, De Witt told him his suspicions
of a clandestine treaty. 241. He was received on his return coldly by
Arlington, and almost with rudeness by Clifford. 244. They knew he
would never concur in the new projects. But in 1682, during one of the
intervals when Charles was playing false with his brother Louis, the
latter, in revenge, let an Abbé Primi, in a history of the Dutch war,
publish an account of the whole secret treaty, under the name of the
Count de St. Majolo. This book was immediately suppressed at the
instance of the English ambassador; and Primi was sent for a short
time to the Bastile. But a pamphlet, published in London just after
the Revolution, contains extracts from it. Dalrymple, ii. 80; _Somers
Tracts_, viii. 13; _Harl. Misc._ ii. 387; _Oeuvres de Louis XIV._
vi. 476. It is singular that Hume should have slighted so well
authenticated a fact, even before Dalrymple's publication of the
treaty; but I suppose he had never heard of Primi's book. The original
treaty has lately been published by Dr. Lingard, from Lord Clifford's
cabinet.
[663] Dalrymple, ii. 22.
[664] _Id._ 23; _Life of James_, 442.
[665] The tenor of the article leads me to conclude, that these troops
were to be landed in England at all events, in order to secure the
public tranquillity without waiting for any disturbance.
[666] P. 49.
[667] Bolingbroke has a remarkable passage as to this in his _Letters
on History_ (Letter VII.): it may be also alluded to by others. The
full details, however, as well as more authentic proofs, were
reserved, as I believe, for the publication of _Oeuvres de Louis
XIV._, where they will be found in vol. ii. 403. The proposal of Louis
to the emperor, in 1667, was, that France should have the Pays Bas,
Franche Comté, Milan, Naples, the ports of Tuscany, Navarre, and the
Philippine Islands; Leopold taking all the rest. The obvious drift of
this was, that France should put herself in possession of an enormous
increase of power and territory, leaving Leopold to fight as he could
for Spain and America, which were not likely to submit peaceably. The
Austrian cabinet understood this; and proposed that they should
exchange their shares. Finally, however, it was concluded on the
king's terms, except that he was to take Sicily instead of Milan. One
article of this treaty was, that Louis should keep what he had
conquered in Flanders; in other words, the terms of the treaty of Aix
la Chapelle. The ratifications were exchanged 29th Feb. 1668. Louis
represents himself as more induced by this prospect than by any fear
of the triple alliance, of which he speaks slightingly, to conclude
the peace of Aix la Chapelle. He thought that he should acquire a
character for moderation which might be serviceable to him, "dans les
grands accroissemens que ma fortune pourroit recevoir." Vol. ii. p.
369.
[668] Dalrymple, 31-57. James gives a different account of this; and
intimates that Henrietta, whose visit to Dover he had for this reason
been much against, prevailed on the king to change his resolution, and
to begin with the war. He gained over Arlington and Clifford. The duke
told them it would quite defeat the catholic design, because the king
must run in debt, and be at the mercy of his parliament. They answered
that, if the war succeeded, it was not much matter what people
suspected. P. 450. This shows that they looked on force as necessary
to compass the design, and that the noble resistance of the Dutch,
under the Prince of Orange, was that which frustrated the whole
conspiracy. "The duke," it is again said (p. 453), "was in his own
judgment against entering into this war before his majesty's power and
authority in England had been better fixed and less precarious, as it
would have been, if the private treaty first agreed on had not been
altered." The French court, however, was evidently right in thinking
that, till the conquest of Holland should be achieved, the declaration
of the king's religion would only weaken him at home. It is gratifying
to find the heroic character of our glorious deliverer displaying
itself among these foul conspiracies. The Prince of Orange came over
to England in 1670. He was then very young; and his uncle, who was
really attached to him, would have gladly associated him in the
design; indeed it had been agreed that he was to possess part of the
United Provinces in sovereignty. But Colbert writes that the king had
found him so zealous a Dutchman and protestant, that he could not
trust him with any part of the secret. He let him know, however, as we
learn from Burnet, 382, that he had himself embraced the Romish faith.
[669] Dalrymple, 57.
[670] P. 68; _Life of James_, 444. In this work it is said that even
the Duchess of Orleans had no knowledge of the real treaty; and that
the other originated with Buckingham. But Dalrymple's authority seems
far better in this instance.
[671] P. 84, etc.
[672] P. 23.
[673] P. 52. The reluctance to let the Duke of Buckingham into the
secret seems to prove that more was meant than a toleration of the
Roman catholic religion, towards which he had always been disposed,
and which was hardly a secret at court.
[674] Pp. 62, 84.
[675] P. 81.
[676] P. 33.
[677] "The generality of the church of England men was not at that
time very averse to the catholic religion; many that went under that
name had their religion to choose, and went to church for company's
sake." _Life of James_, p. 442.
[678] _Life of James_, ibid.
[679] Macpherson's _Extracts_, p. 51.
[680] 22 Car. 2, c. 1; Kennet, p. 306. The zeal in the Commons against
popery tended to aggravate this persecution of the dissenters. They
had been led by some rascally clergymen to believe the absurdity that
there was a good understanding between the two parties.
[681] Burnet, p. 272.
[682] Baxter, pp. 74, 86; Kennet, p. 311. See a letter of Sheldon,
written at this time, to the bishops of his province, urging them to
persecute the nonconformists. Harris's _Life of Charles II._, p. 106.
Proofs also are given by this author of the manner in which some, such
as Lamplugh and Ward, responded to their primate's wishes.
Sheldon found a panegyrist quite worthy of him in his chaplain Parker,
afterwards Bishop of Oxford. This notable person has left a Latin
history of his own time, wherein he largely commemorates the
archbishop's zeal in molesting the dissenters, and praises him for
defeating the scheme of comprehension. P. 25. I observe, that the late
excellent editor of Burnet has endeavoured to slide in a word for the
primate (note on vol. i. p. 243), on the authority of that history by
Bishop Parker, and of Sheldon's Life in the _Biographia Britannica_.
It is lamentable to rest on such proofs. I should certainly not have
expected that, in Magdalen College, of all places, the name of Parker
would have been held in honour; and as to the _Biographia_, laudatory
as it is of primates in general (save Tillotson, whom it depreciates),
I find, on reference, that its praise of Sheldon's virtues is grounded
on the authority of his epitaph in Croydon church.
[683] Baxter, 87.
[684] This is asserted by Burnet, and seems to be acknowledged by the
Duke of York. The court endeavoured to mitigate the effect of the bill
brought into the Commons, in consequence of Coventry's injury; and so
far succeeded, that instead of a partial measure of protection for the
members of the House of Commons, as originally designed (which seemed,
I suppose, to carry too marked a reference to the particular
transaction), it was turned into a general act, making it a capital
felony to wound with intention to maim or disfigure. But the name of
the Coventry act has always clung to this statute. _Parl. Hist._ 461.
[685] The king promised the bankers interest at six per cent., instead
of the money due to them from the exchequer; but this was never paid
till the latter part of William's reign. It may be considered as the
beginning of our national debt. It seems to have been intended to
follow the shutting up of the exchequer with a still more
unwarrantable stretch of power, by granting an injunction to the
creditors who were suing the bankers at law. According to North
(_Examen_, pp. 38, 47), Lord-Keeper Bridgman resigned the great seal
rather than comply with this; and Shaftesbury himself, who succeeded
him, did not venture, if I understand the passage rightly, to grant an
absolute injunction. The promise of interest for their money seems to
have been given instead of this more illegal and violent remedy.
[686] _Parl. Hist._ 515; Kennet, 313.
[687] Bridgman, the lord-keeper, resigned the great seal, according to
Burnet, because he would not put it to the declaration of indulgence,
and was succeeded by Shaftesbury.
[688] _Parl. Hist._ 517. The presbyterian party do not appear to have
supported the declaration, at least Birch spoke against it: Waller,
Seymour, Sir Robert Howard in its favour. Baxter says, the
nonconformists were divided in opinion as to the propriety of availing
themselves of the declaration. P. 99. Birch told Pepys, some years
before, that he feared some would try for extending the toleration to
papists; but the sober party would rather be without it than have it
on those terms. Pepys's _Diary_, Jan. 31, 1668; _Parl. Hist._ 546,
561. Father Orleans says, that Ormond, Arlington, and some more
advised the king to comply; the duke and the rest of the council
urging him to adhere, and Shaftesbury, who had been the first mover of
the project, pledging himself for its success; there being a party for
the king among the Commons, and a force on foot enough to daunt the
other side. It was suspected that the women interposed, and prevailed
on the king to withdraw his declaration. Upon this, Shaftesbury turned
short round, provoked at the king's want of steadiness, and especially
at his giving up the point about issuing writs in the recess of
parliament.
[689] 25 Car. II. c. 2; Burnet, p. 490.
[690] The test act began in a resolution (February 28, 1673) that all
who refuse to take the oaths and receive the sacrament, according to
the rites of the church of England, shall be incapable of all public
employments. _Parl. Hist._ 556. The court party endeavoured to oppose
the declaration against transubstantiation, but of course in vain.
_Id._ 561, 592.
The king had pressed his brother to receive the sacrament, in order to
avoid suspicion, which he absolutely refused; and this led, he says,
to the test. _Life of James_, p. 482. But his religion was long pretty
well known, though he did not cease to conform till 1672.
[691] _Parl. Hist._ 526-585. These debates are copied from those
published by Anchitel Grey, a member of the Commons for thirty years;
but his notes, though collectively most valuable, are sometimes so
brief and ill expressed, that it is hardly possible to make out their
meaning. The court and church party, or rather some of them, seem to
have much opposed this bill for the relief of protestant dissenters.
[692] Commons' Journals, 28 and 29 March 1673; Lords' Journals, 24 and
29 March. The Lords were so slow about this bill that the lower house,
knowing an adjournment to be in contemplation, sent a message to
quicken them, according to a practice not unusual in this reign.
Perhaps, on an attentive consideration of the report on the conference
(March 29) it may appear that the Lords' amendments had a tendency to
let in popish, rather than to favour protestant, dissenters. Parker
says that this act of indulgence was defeated by his great hero,
Archbishop Sheldon, who proposed that the nonconformists should
acknowledge the war against Charles I. to be unlawful. _Hist. sui
temporis_, p. 203 of the translation.
[693] It was proposed, as an instruction to the committee on the test
act, that a clause should be introduced, rendering nonconformists
incapable of sitting in the House of Commons. This was lost by 163 to
107; but it was resolved that a distinct bill should be brought in for
that purpose. 10 March 1673.
[694] Kennet, p. 318.
[695] Commons' Journals, 20 Jan. 1674; _Parl. Hist._ 608, 625, 649;
Burnet.