Page images
PDF
EPUB

precious ambassador, Barillon, were not wanting. How humiliating must it not have been to an Englishman, to pen the following passage!

'Barillon had carefully watched the progress of these intrigues, and received instructions from his court to make it his chief object to prevent any grant of money in support of the Spanish treaty, and for that purpose to foment by every expedient in his power the dissensions among the several parties. He informed the popular leaders that Louis considered it as much his interest as theirs to confine within the narrowest limits the powers of the crown, and would therefore be always ready to aid them in their efforts to secure the liberties of the people. To James he made the offer of pecuniary aid, whenever that prince might deem it expedient to draw the sword in support of his own rights. If the king should seem disposed to an union with the popular party, the ambassador was authorized to prevent it by offering a yearly pension, provided he would withdraw from his treaty with Spain, and govern without a parliament; and should the bill of exclusion be carried, and a necessity exist of choosing between the Prince of Orange and Monmouth, he was instructed to support the former, though a personal enemy, in preference to the pretensions of a bastard. Barillon immediately began to intrigue, and with the distribution of a few thousand pounds, purchased the services, or a promise of the services, of several among the more influential members of the House of Commons.'-vol. viii. 4to., p. 163.

We read with feelings of still deeper horror the page by which this is followed, and which shows how well all these causes worked together in the common cauldron of disaffection. The reader may remember to have heard of the meal-tub plot, among the many which distinguished those times. The mystery attending this plot has never been satisfactorily developed; it was charged against the Presbyterians, who were accused of conspiring the death of the king; and Dangerfield, who took a large share in it, afterwards turned it to a purpose, which clearly indicates its real origin. The blood runs cold in our veins, while we look back upon the parliament of 1680.

It was the intention of the Whigs that the bill of exclusion should originate in that house. The plan of operations was traced by the hand of Shaftesbury, and did honour to the ingenuity of its author. As soon as the members had taken the oaths, Dangerfield appeared at the bar to accuse the presumptive heir to the crown. Though he stood there with the accumulated infamy of sixteen convictions on his head, though his testimony had been rejected by the verdicts of three successive juries, he was received with approbation, and listened to with credulity. He solemnly affirmed that the Duke of York had been privy to his imposture of a presbyterian plot, had given him instructions to forge and distribute the lists and commissions, had made him a present of twenty guineas with a promise of a more substantial reward, had turned into ridicule his scruple of shedding the king's blood, and had commanded him to persevere without dread of the consequences. Before the indignation excited by this disclosure had subsided, Lord Russell rose, and moved that it should be

the first care of the house "effectually to suppress popery, and prevent a popish successor." He was seconded by Sir Henry Capel, who, in the whole reign of the king, during the lapse of twenty years, could see nothing but the prevalence of popish counsels. Whether toleration was granted or denied, whether war was declared or peace concluded, whether the king sought to conciliate the two houses by concession, or cut short their debates by a prorogation or dissolution, every measure, no matter what might be its apparent motive, proceeded from the secret influence of the papists in the prosecution of their great objects,-the destruction of protestantism, and the elevation of a popish prince to the throne. From the same impure source he derived the many acts of arbitrary power, which marked the king's reign, the burning of London, the destruction of the fleet in the river, the attempts on the life of their protestant monarch, and that hellish plot for the discovery of which they were indebted to the mercy of Providence, and the agency of Titus Oates. Montague and others followed in the same tone of invective and crimination, and the resolution was adopted without a dissentient voice.'-vol. viii. 4to. pp. 164, 165.

We have no patience with such details: they are sufficient to throw discredit upon the very institution of parliament. We feel as little forbearance towards some of the victims of this infatuated period, who, instead of resisting their persecutors with the courage that ought always to animate the breast of a freeman, shrunk into the meanness of the spaniel, and fawned upon the foot that trod upon them. Lord Stafford, though perfectly innocent of any plot, having been condemned to die the death of a traitor, was told before he left the bar, that the lords would be suitors to his Majesty to remit every part of the punishment-but the striking off his head! 'At these words,' says the historian, he burst into tears: but, suddenly collecting himself, said " My lords, it is not your justice, but your kindness that makes me weep.' Such a man as this dies without our pity: he degrades the noble character of the martyr.

For the bill of exclusion, which failed, was substituted a bill of limitations, reducing the future authority of the successor to a mere shadow-or rather, indeed, giving him only the title of King, but transferring the exercise of the office to a Regent. Even this bill, which, with the assent of Charles, was presented to the Commons, was rejected by them, no measure short of total exclusion being at that moment capable of allaying their frenzy. The dissolution of the parliament frustrated this second bill; and we cannot but agree with Dr. Lingard in thinking that the termination of the question in this way, at the period when it was agitated (1681), was a most fortunate circumstance for the liberties of this country.

James,' he very justly observes, was not of a temper to acquiesce either in the expedient (the limitations) or the exclusion; he would have. appealed to arms in defence of what he considered his right; and so profound was the reverence felt for the principles of the ancient constitution, so strong the prepossession in favour of the divine right of hereditary suc

cession, that he would have found multitudes ready to draw the sword in his cause. Had he succeeded, he would have come a conqueror to the throne, armed with more formidable authority than he could have possessed in the ordinary way of inheritance; and if he had failed, there was reason to fear, from the political bias of the popular leaders, that the legitimate rights of the sovereign would have been reduced to the mere name and pageantry of a throne. It is probable that the dissolution preserved the nation from a civil war, and from its natural consequences, the establishment of a republican or an arbitrary government.'-vol. viii. 4to. p. 210.

The decision of the King produced a powerful effect, and for some time the tide of public sentiment was turned in favour of royalty. It was during this period that Shaftesbury was compelled to fly to Holland, where he died; that the franchise was taken from the city of London, the Ryehouse plot discovered, and Lord William Russell tried and executed for his support of the doctrine of resistance, on the very day that the University of Oxford issued its celebrated decree in favour of passive obedience-a decree which it acted upon at the revolution, by presenting its plate, by way of a supply, to the Prince of Orange. It was during this re-action on the side of royalty, that Algernon Sydney also died for the same cause that brought Lord William Russell to the block-a cause worthy of a more honourable martyr; for we do not think that the history of England presents, to our contemplation, many more questionable characters than that of Algernon Sydney. We cannot abstain from giving Dr. Lingard's view of the merits of that much-bepraised hero of liberty. It coincides exactly with the impressions which we have always entertained of that ungrateful and corrupt traitor:

'It was the persuasion of Sydney that civil liberty could flourish only under a republican government. After the death of Charles I. his birth and abilities raised him to the highest rank among the parliamentary leaders; but thence, by the usurpation of Cromwell, he was driven into retirement, where his promises of patient submission could not shield him from the jealousy and precautions of the Protector. The re-establishment of the commonwealth called him once more into political life; and he was employed on a mission to the court of Copenhagen, when Charles II. took possession of the throne. Sydney was again prepared to submit to necessity but his avowed hostility to the Stuarts had made him an object of more than ordinary aversion; and he preferred the evil of a voluntary exile to the disgrace of asking pardon of the sovereign. From Italy he watched the progress of events: the war of 1663 summoned him from his retreat; he tendered his services to the enemies of his country; he offered to raise a rebellion in England, and he endeavoured to persuade Louis XIV., that it was for his interest to re-establish the commonwealth. Though Charles was well acquainted with his intrigues and hostility, he afterwards allowed him to visit his father, the Earl of Leicester, during the last sickness of that nobleman, and ultimately granted him a pardon for his past offences, a favour which, if we may believe him, "he valued not at a lower rate than the saving of his life." But his gratitude soon evaporated, and he employed the benefit against the benefactor. Faithful to

his principles, he entered into every opposition to the government, and the English reformer became the hireling of the French ambassador. His apologists have remarked that if he took the money of France, he still persisted in that line of conduct which he deemed most beneficial to his country; which is much the same as to assert that he was mean enough to accept the wages of infamy for doing the work of righteousness.' vol. viii. 4to. pp. 269, 270.

These prosecutions were followed by a variety of others, all tending to shew the confidence which the Government of the King had in its strength. The Duke of York was recalled from his temporary banishment; he was again made a member of the Council; the "expedient" was no longer thought of, and when Charles died (in February, 1685) the cause of royalty may be con sidered as having reached a very high degree in the general favour of the people.

Whatever doubt may be thrown upon the point by some historians, Dr. Lingard demonstrates that Charles died in the Catholic religion. The fact is of no particular consequence, as it took place manifestly through the influence of the Duke of York, and apparently without any thing like the operation of conviction upon the monarch's mind. Indeed it is but too evident that during his whole reign religion was looked upon by Charles II. rather as an affair of policy than as a matter connected with his hopes of an hereafter. His character is drawn by the author with the nice discrimination and impartiality which distinguish all his historical portraits.

The whole of the latter portion of the reign of Charles was conducted with so high a hand, and so depressed in the public estimation were the Whig party, once so popular, that James, against whom so many bills of exclusion and plots of disinheritance were put in motion, ascended the throne not only without being resisted, but without even a murmur being heard to his disadvantage on any side. Unfortunately for his dynasty, as well as for the Catholics whom he desired to serve, he soon became too confident of his strength, and entered upon that course of arbitrary and offensive policy which, within a period of less than three years from his accession, compelled him to abandon the crown. Not contented with hearing mass openly, he went to chapel in regal state, discharged recusants from prison; and although Dr. Lingard shews that he did not actually meditate the re-establishment of the Catholic religion, as some historians have inferred from his conduct, and that his views were limited to liberty of conscience and freedom of worship for all parties, nevertheless, considering the then state of the public mind on this question, it is clear that he advanced towards his objects in a suspicious manner, and with too seamanlike a rapidity and boldness. It is well known that he endeavoured to continue the disgraceful practice of his predecessor of receiving a pension from the French King :-nay he even demanded the

arrears which were due to Charles! There is reason to suspect that Barillon, who was the negotiator upon these occasions, was well paid on this side of the water for the exercise of his ingenuity and influence in persuading his royal master to grant money to the English monarch without any stipulation, and indeed without the hope of any return being made for it. It does not appear, however, that James received more than the arrears due to his brother, although a large sum was placed in Barillon's hands for the purpose of being advanced to the king, if circumstances should compel him to dissolve the parliament, and defend himself by arms against his rebellious subjects.'

The invasion, failure, and execution of Monmouth, the sanguinary trials of his unhappy followers under the superintendence of Jeffreys, and the loyal addresses which were laid at his feet from all quarters, added not a little to the overweening confidence which James felt in the solidity of his power. An attempt to repeal the Test Act once more kindled the fury of religious bigotry in the country; this attempt having being frustrated, the king was advised to have recourse to his "dispensing power" in favour of the Catholics-a power at all times odious, though perhaps at that period not altogether unconstitutional, and certainly not unsanctioned by usage. It was most properly abolished at the revolution, and, as ought to have been expected, the resumption of so extreme a prerogative, if such it was, furnished the already increasing enemies of the court with abundant matter of complaint and angry declamation. The pulpits resounded with invectives against the king's religion; the King, as the Head of the Church, endeavoured to impose silence upon these dangerous antagonists; an ecclesiastical commission was issued, the Bishop of London (Sharp) was suspended, Catholic fellows were placed in the Universities, Catholic chapels were opened, the test itself was dispensed with, liberty of conscience proclaimed; in short, so numerous and so incautious were the measures which thus followed each other with so much haste, that in two years after his accession James found himself the most unpopular of monarchs. The measure of his offences against the prevailing prejudices of the nation was filled up by his prosecution of the seven bishops, who refused to comply with his most injudicious order directing the Declaration of Liberty of Conscience to be read in all the churches-an order', says Dr. Lingard, 'the impolicy of which is so obvious as to provoke a suspicion that it proceeded from the advice of a concealed enemy'. The acquittal of the bishops was the signal of his downfal. The birth of a prince who would of course be brought up a Catholic, only argumented the alarm of the nation, and fixed all eyes upon the Prince of Orange, towards whom they had already been turned. In narrating the events of the short and disastrous reign of James, Dr. Lingard loses no opportunity of marking the infatuated counsels by which that monarch was guided. The impartiality, the acumen, the research

« PreviousContinue »