A history of the early part of the reign of James the Second; with an introductory chapter

Front matter

.0 0^

^ ir

'oo*

Contents

Introductory Observations. — First Period, from Henry VII. to the Year I588. — Second Period, from I588 to I640.— Meeting of Parliament. — Redress of Grievances. — Strafford's Attainder. — The commencement of the Civil War. — Treaty from the Isle of Wight. — The King's Execution. — Cromwell's Power; — his Character. — Indifference of the Nation respecting Forms of Government. — The Restoration. — Ministry of Clarendon and Southampton. — Cabal. — Dutch War. — De Witt. — The Prince of Orange. — The Popish Plot. — The Habeas Corpus Act. — The Exclusion Bill. — Dissolution of Charles the Second's last Parliament. — His Power ; — his Tyranny in Scotland ; in England. — Exorbitant Fines. — Executions. — Forfeitures of Charters. — Despotism established, — Despondency of good Men. — Charles's Death. — His Character. — Reflections upon the probable Consequences of his Reign and Death.

HISTORY, i^c.

In reading the history of every country, there are chapter certain periods at which the mind naturally pauses,

I

CHAPTER the question is clearly, forcibly, and, I think, convincingly, stated by Rapin, who exposes very ably the extreme folly of trusting to measures, without consideration of the men who are to execute them. Even in Hume's statement of the question, whatever may have been his intention, the arguments in favour of the exclusion appear to me greatly to preponderate. Indeed it is not easy to conceive upon what principles even the Tories could justify their support of the restrictions. Many among them, no doubt, saw the provisions in the same light in which the Whigs represented them, as an expedient, admirably indeed adapted to the real object of upholding the present King's power, by the defeat of the exclusion, but never likely to take effect for their pretended purpose of controuling that of his successour ; and supported them for that very reason. But such a principle of conduct was too fraudulent to be avowed ; nor ought it perhaps, in candour, to be imputed to the majority of the party. To those who acted with good faith, and meant that the restrictions should really take place, and be effectual, surely it ought to have occurred, (and to those who most prized the prerogatives of the crown, it ought most forcibly to have occurred,) that in consenting to curtail the powers of the crown, rather than to alter the succession, they were adopting the greater, chapter

in order to avoid the lesser evil. The question of,

what are to be the powers of the crown, is surely of superiour importance to that of, who shall wear it? Those, at least, who consider the royal prerogative as vested in the King, not for his sake, but for that of his subjects, must consider the one of these questions as much above the other in dignity, as the rights of the public are more valuable than those of an individual. In this view the prerogatives of the crown are in substance and effect the rights of the people ; and these rights of the people were not to be sacrificed to the purpose of preserving the succession to the most favoured prince, much less to one who, on account of his religious persuasion, was justly feared and suspected. In truth, the question between the exclusion and restrictions seems peculiarly calculated to ascertain the different views in which the different parties in this country have seen, and perhaps ever will see, the prerogatives of the crown. The Whigs, who consider them as a trust for the people, a doctrine which the Tories themselves, when pushed in argument, will sometimes admit, naturally think it their duty rather to change the manager of the trust, than to impair the subject of it; while others, who consider them as

CHAPTER the right or property of the King, will as naturally act as they would do in the case of any other property, and consent to the loss or annihilation of any part of it, for the purpose of preserving the remainder to him, whom they style the rightful owner. If the people be the sovereign, and the King the delegate, it is better to change the bailiff than to injure the farm ; but if the King be the proprietor, it is better the farm should be impaired, nay, part of it destroyed, than that the whole should pass over to an usurper. The royal prerogative ought, according to the Whigs, (not in the case of a Popish successour only, but in all cases,) to be reduced to such powers as are in their exercise beneficial to the people ; and of the benefit of these they will not rashly suffer the people to be deprived, whether the executive power be in the hands of an hereditary, or of an elected king; of a regent, or of any other denomination of magistrate ; while on the other hand, they who consider prerogative with reference only to royalty, will, with equal readiness, consent either to the extension or the suspension of its exercise, as the occasional interests of the prince may seem to require. The senseless plea of a divine and indefesible right in James, which even the legislature was incompetent to set aside, though as inconsistent with the declarations of Parliament in chapter

the Statute Book, and with the whole practice of the

English Constitution, as it is repugnant to nature and common sense, was yet warmly insisted upon by the high-church party. Such an argument, as might naturally be expected, operated rather to provoke the Whigs to perseverance, than to dissuade them from their measure: it was, in their eyes, an additional merit belonging to the Exclusion Bill, that it strengthened, by one instance more, the authority of former statutes, in reprobating a doctrine which seems to imply, that man can have a property in his fellow-creatures. By far the best argument in favour of the restrictions, is the practical one, that they could be obtained, and that the exclusion could not; but the value of this argument is chiefly proved by the event. The Exclusionists had a fair prospect of success, and their plan being clearly the best, they were justified in pursuing it.

The spirit of resistance which the King showed in the instance of the Militia and the Exclusion Bills, seems to have been systematically confined to those cases where he supposed his power to be more immediately concerned. In the prosecution of the Prosecution aged and innocent Lord Stafford, he was so far from interfering in behalf of that nobleman, that many of

I.

CHAPTER those most in his confidence, and, as it is affirmed, the Duchess of Portsmouth herself, openly favoured the prosecution. Even after the dissolution of his last Parliament, when he had so far subdued his enemies as to be no longer under any apprehensions from them, he did not think it vs^orth vs^hile to save the life of Plunket, the Popish Archbishop of Armagh, of whose innocence no doubt could be entertained. But this is not to be wondered at, since, in all transactions relative to the Popish Plot, minds of a very different cast from Charles's became, as by some fatality, divested of all their wonted sentiments of justice and humanity. Who can read without horrour, the account of that savage murmur of applause, which broke out upon one of the villains at the bar, swearing positively to Stafford's having proposed the murder of the King ? And how is this horrour deepened, when we reflect, that in that odious cry were probably mingled the voices of men to whose memory every lover of the English constitution is bound to pay the tribute of gratitude and respect ! Even after condemnation, Lord Russel himself, whose character is wholly (this instance excepted) free from the stain of rancour or cruelty, stickled for the severer mode of executing the sentence, in a manner which his fear of the King's establishing a precedent of pardoning in cases of impeachment, chapter

(for this, no doubt, was his motive,) cannot satisfac —

torily excuse.

In an early period of the King's difficulties. Sir Templets ad- William Temple, whose life and character is a refutation of the vulgar notion that philosophy and practical good sense in business are incompatible attainments, recommended to him the plan of governing by a council, which was to consist in great part of the most popular noblemen and gentlemen in the kingdom. Such persons being the natural, as well as the safest, mediators between princes and discontented subjects, this seems to have been the best possible expedient. Hume says it was found too feeble a remedy ; but he does not take notice that it was never in fact tried, inasmuch as, not only the King's confidence was withheld from the most considerable members of the council, but even the most important determinations were taken without consulting the council itself. Nor can there be a doubt but the King's views, in adopting Temple's advice, were totally different from those of the adviser, whose only errour in this transaction seems to have consisted in recommending a plan, wherein confidence and fair dealing were of necessity to be principal ingredients, to a prince whom

CHAPTER he well knew to be incapable of either. Accord-

i^^g^X' having appointed the council in April, with

a promise of being governed in important matters by their advice, he in July dissolved one Parliament without their concurrence, and in October, forbade them even to give their opinions upon the propriety of a resolution which he had taken of proroguing another. From that time he probably considered the council to be, as it was, virtually dissolved ; and it was not long before means presented themselves to him, better adapted, in his estimation, even to his immediate objects, and certainly more suitable to his general designs. The union between the court and the church party, which had been so closely cemented by their successful resistance to the Exclusion Bill, and its authors, had at length acquired such a degree of strength and consistency, that the King ventured first to appoint Oxford, instead of London, for the meeting of Parliament ; and then, having secured to himself a good Dissolution pension from France, to dissolve the Parliament the Second's thcrc met, with a full resolution never to call

last Parlia- . • j j T ■ 1 J

ment. auother ; to which resolution, indeed, Lewis had bound him, as one of the conditions on which he was to receive his stipend.'^ No measure was ever

* Dairymple's Memoir?.

attended with more complete success. The most chapter

flattering addresses poured in from all parts of the

kingdom; divine right, and indiscriminate obedience, were every where the favourite doctrines ; and men seemed to vie with each other who should have the honour of the greatest share in the glorious work of slavery, by securing to the King, for the present, and, after him, to the Duke, absolute and uncontroulable power. They, who, either because Charles had been called a forgiving prince by his flatterers, (upon what ground I could never discover,) or from some supposed connection between indolence and good nature, had deceived themselves into a hope, that his tyranny would be of the milder sort, found themselves much disappointed in their expectations.

The whole history of the remaining part of his his power

. ^"^ tyranny.

reign exhibits an uninterrupted series of attacks upon the liberty, property, and lives of his subjects. The character of the government appeared first, and with the most marked and prominent features, in Scotland. The condemnation of Argyle and Weir, in Scotland. the one for having subjoined an explanation when he took the test oath, the other for having kept company with a rebel, whom it was not proved he knew to be such, and who had never been proclaimed, resemble more the acts of Tiberius and

CHAPTER Domitian, than those of even the most arbitrary

, --- modern governments. It is true, the sentences were

not executed ; Weir was reprieved ; and whether or not Argyle, if he had not deemed it more prudent to escape by flight, would have experienced the same clemency, cannot now be ascertained. The terrour of these examples would have been, in the judgment of most men, abundantly sufficient to teach the people of Scotland their duty, and to satisfy them that their lives, as well as every thing else they had been used to call their own, were now completely in the power of their masters. But the government did not stop here, and having outlawed thousands, upon the same pretence upon which Weir had been condemned, inflicted capital punishment upon such criminals of both sexes as refused to answer, or answered otherwise than was prescribed to them, to the most ensnaring questions. In England. In England, the City of London seemed to hold out for a certain time, like a strong fortress in a conquered country ; and, by means of this citadel, Shaftesbury and others were saved from the vengeance of the court. But this resistance, however honourable to the corporation who made it, could not be of long duration. The weapons of law and justice were found feeble, when opposed to the power of a monarch, who was at the head of a chapter

numerous and bigoted party of the nation, and who,

which was most material of all, had enabled himself to govern without a Parliament. Civil resistance in this country, even to the most illegal attacks of royal tyrannj, has never, I believe, been successful, unless when supported by Parliament, or at least by a great party in one or other of the two Houses. The Court, having wrested from the Livery of London, partly by corruption, and partly by violence, the free election of their mayor and sheriffs, did not wait the accomplishment of their plan for the destruction of the whole corporation, which, from their first success, they justly deemed certain ; but immediately proceeded to put in execution their system of oppression. Pilkington, Exorbitant Colt, and Oates were fined a hundred thousand pounds each for having spoken disrespectfully of the Duke of York ; Barnardiston ten thousand, for having in a private letter expressed sentiments deemed improper ; and Sidney, Russel, and Armstrong, found that the just and mild principles which characterise the criminal law of England could no longer protect their lives, when the sacrifice was called for by the policy or vengeance of the King. To give an account of all the oppression of

H

CHAPTER this period, would be to enumerate every arrest, — i — every trial, every sentence, that took place in questions between the crown and the subjects.

Rye-house Qf thc Rye-housc plot it may be said, much more 1683. truly than of the Popish, that there was in it some truth, mixed with much falsehood ; and though many of the circumstances in Kealing's account are nearly as absurd and ridiculous as those in Oates's, it seems probable that there was among some of those accused, a notion of assassinating the King ; but whether this notion was ever ripened into what may be called a design, and, much more, whether it were ever evinced by such an overt act, as the law requires for conviction, is very doubtful. In regard to the conspirators of higher ranks, from whom all suspicion of participation in the intended assassination has been long since done away, there is unquestionably reason to believe that they had often met and consulted, as well for the purpose of ascertaining the means they actually possessed as for that of devising others, for delivering their country from the dreadful servitude into which it had fallen ; and thus far their conduct appears clearly to have been laudable. If they went further, and did any thing which could be fairly construed into an actual conspiracy, to levy war against the King, they acted, considering the dispo- chapter sition of the nation at that period, very indiscreetly. ' But whether their proceedings had ever gone this length, is far from certain. Monmouth's communications with the King, when we reflect upon all the circumstances of those communications, deserve not the smallest attention ; nor indeed, if they did, does the letter which he afterwards withdrew, prove any thing upon this point. And it is an outrage to common sense to call Lord Grey's narrative, written, as he himself states in his letter to James the Second, while the question of his pardon was pending, an authentick account. That which is most certain in this affair is, that they had committed no overt act, indicating the imagining of the King's death, even according to the most strained construction of the statute of Edward the Third ; much less was any such act legally proved against them. And the conspiring to levy war was not treason, except by a Execution of recent statute of Charles the Second, the prosecutions upon which were expressly limited to a certain time, which in these cases had elapsed ; so that it is impossible not to assent to the opinion of those who have ever stigmatized the condemnation and execution of Russel as a most flagrant violation of law and justice.

Russel.

CHAPTER The proceedings in Sidney's case were still more

^' detestable. The production of papers, containing

Trial and spcculative ooinions upon government and liberty,

Execution of *^ , ^ TO / »

Sidney. writtcu loug before, and perhaps never even intended to be published, together w^ith the use made of those papers, in considering them as a substitute for the second witness to the overt act, exhibited such a compound of wickedness and nonsense as is hardly to be paralleled in the history of juridical tyranny. But the validity of pretences was little attended to, at that time, in the case of a person whom the court had devoted to destruction, and upon evidence such as has been stated, w^as this great and excellent man condemned to die. Pardon was not to be expected. Mr. Hume says, that such an interference on the part of the King, though it might have been an act of heroick generosity, could not be regarded as an indispensable duty. He might have said, with more propriety, that it was idle to expect that the government, after having incurred so much guilt in order to obtain the sentence, should, by remitting it, relinquish the object, just when it was within its grasp. The same historian considers the jury as highly blameable, and so do I ; but what was their guilt, in comparison of that of the court who tried, and of the government who prosecuted, in this infamous cause ? Yet the jury, being the only party chapter that can with any colour be stated as acting inde- ' pendently of the government, is the only one mentioned by him as blameable. The prosecutor is wholly omitted in his censure, and so is the court ; this last, not from any tenderness for the judge, (who, to do this author justice, is no favourite with him,) but lest the odious connection between that branch of the judicature and the government should strike the reader too forcibly ; for JeflFeries, in this instance, ought to be regarded as the mere tool and instrument, (a fit one, no doubt,) of the prince who had appointed him for the purpose of this and similar services. Lastly, the King is gravely introduced on the question of pardon, as if he had had no prior concern in the cause, and were now to decide upon the propriety of extending mercy to a criminal condemned by a court of judicature ; nor are we once reminded what that judicature was, by whom appointed, by whom influenced, by whom called upon, to receive that detestable evidence, the very recollection of which, even at this distance of time, fires every honest heart with indignation. As well might we palliate the murders of Tiberius, who seldom put to death his victims without a previous decree of his senate. The moral of all this seems to be, that

CHAPTER whenever a prince can, by intimidation, corruption, ' illegal evidence, or other such means, obtain a verdict against a subject whom he dislikes, he may cause him to be executed without any breach of indispensable duty ; nay, that it is an act of heroick generosity, if he spares him. I never reflect on Mr. Hume's statement of this matter but with the deepest regret. Widely as I differ from him upon many other occasions, this appears to me to be the most reprehensible passage of his whole work. A spirit of adulation towards deceased princes, though in a good measure free from the imputation of interested meanness, which is justly attached to flattery, when applied to living monarchs ; yet, as it is less intelligible, with respect to its motives, than the other, so is it in its consequences, still more pernicious to the general interests of mankind. Fear of censure from contemporaries will seldom have much eflfect upon men in situations of unlimited authority : they will too often flatter themselves, that the same power which enables them to commit the crime, will secure them from reproach. The dread of posthumous infamy, therefore, being the only restraint, their consciences excepted, upon the passions of such persons, it is lamentable that this last defence, {feeble enough at best,) should in any degree be impaired ; and impaired it must be, if not totally de- chapter

stroyed, when tyrants can hope to find in a man like

Hume, no less eminent for the integrity and benevolence of his heart, than for the depth and soundness of his understanding, an apologist for even their foulest murders.

Thus fell Russel and Sidney, two names that will, it is hoped, be for ever dear to every English heart. When their memory shall cease to be an object of respect and veneration, it requires no spirit of prophecy to foretell that English liberty will be fast approaching to its final consummation. Their deportment was such as might be expected from men who knew themselves to be suffering, not for their crimes, but for their virtues. In courage they were equal, but the fortitude of Russel, who was connected with the world by private and domestic ties, which Sidney had not, was put to the severer trial ; and the story of the last days of this excellent man's life, fills the mind with such a mixture of tenderness and admiration, that I know not any scene in history that more powerfully excites our sympathy, or goes more directly to the heart.

The very day on which Russel was executed, Oxford Dethe University of Oxford passed their famous Decree, condemning formally, as impious and heretical

56 INTHODUCTORY CHAPTER.

CHAPTER propositions, everyprinciple upon which the consti-

' tution of this or any other free country can maintain

itself. Nor was this learned body satisfied with stigmatizing such principles as contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to the decrees of Councils, to the writings of the Fathers, to the faith and profession of the primitive church, as destructive of the kingly government, the safety of his Majesty's person, the publick peace, the laws of nature, and bounds of human society ; but after enumerating the several obnoxious propositions, among which was one declaring all civil authority derived from the people ; another, asserting a mutual contract, tacit or express, between the King and his subjects; a third, maintaining the lawfulness of changing the succession to the crown ; with many others of a like nature, they solemnly decreed all and every of those propositions to be not only false and seditious, but impious, and that the books which contained them were fitted to lead to rebellion, murder of princes, and atheism itself. Such are the absurdities which men are not ashaaied to utter in order to cast odious imputations upon their adversaries ; and such the manner in which churchmen will abuse, when it suits their policy, the holy name of that religion whose first precept is to love one another, for the purpose of teaching us to hate our neighbours witli more than chapter

ordinary rancour. If Much ado about Nothing had

been published in those days, the town-clerk's declaration, that receiving a thousand ducats for accusing the Lady Hero wrongfully, was flat burglary, might be supposed to be a satire upon this decree ; yet Shakespeare, well as he knew human nature, not only as to its general course, but in all its eccentrick deviations, could never dream, that, in the persons of Dogberry, Verges, and their followers, he was representing the vice-chancellors and doctors of our learned University.

Among the oppressions of this period, most of Mr. Locke's which were attended with consequences so much from Oxford. more important to the several objects of persecution, it may seem scarcely worth while to notice the expulsion of John Locke from Christ Church College, Oxford. But besides the interest which every incident in the life of a person so deservedly eminent, naturally excites, there appears to have been something in the transaction itself characteristick of the spirit of the times, as well as of the general nature of absolute power. Mr. Locke was known to have been intimately connected with Lord Shaftesbury, and had very prudently judged it advisable for him, to prolong for some time his residence upon the

CHAPTER Continent, to which he had resorted originally on

'. — account of his health. A suspicion, as it has been

since proved, unfounded, that he was the author of a pamphlet which gave offence to the government, induced the King to insist upon his removal from his studentship at Christ Church. Sunderland writes, by the King's command, to Dr. Fell, Bishop of Oxford, and Dean of Christ Church. The reverend prelate answers, that he has long had an eye upon Mr. Locke's behaviour ; but though frequent attempts had been made, (attempts of which the Bishop expresses no disapprobation,) to draw him into imprudent conversation, by attacking, in his company, the reputation, and insulting the memory, of his late patron and friend, and thus to make his gratitude, and all the best feelings of his heart, instrumental to his ruin, these attempts all proved unsuccessful. Hence the Bishop infers, not the innocence of Mr. Locke, but that he was a great master of concealment, both as to words and looks; for looks, it is to be supposed, would have furnished a pretext for his expulsion, more decent than any which had yet been discovered. An expedient is then suggested, to drive Mr. Locke to a dilemma, by summoning him to attend the College on the first of January ensuing. If he do not appear, he shall be expelled for contumacy;

INTRODtrCTORY CHAPTER. 59

if he come, matter of charge may be found against chapter

him, for what he shall have said at London, or else

where, where he will have been less upon his guard than at Oxford. Some have ascribed Fell's hesitation, if it can be so called, in executing the King's order, to his unwillingness to injure Locke, who was his friend; others, with more reason, to the doubt of the legality of the order. However this may have been, neither his scruple nor his reluctance was regarded by a court who knew its own power. A peremptory order was accordingly sent, and immediate obedience ensued.''' Thus, while, without the shadow of a crime, Mr. Locke lost a situation attended with some emolument, and great convenience, was the University deprived of, or rather thus, from the base principles of servility, did she cast away, the man the having produced whom is now her chiefest glory; and thus, to those who are not determined to be blind, did the true nature of absolute power discover itself, against v\^hich the middling station is not more secure than the most exalted. Tyranny, when glutted with the blood of the great, and the plunder of the rich, will condescend to hunt humbler game, and make a peaceable

Vide Sunderland's correspondence with the Bishop of Oxford, in the Appendix.

CHAPTER and innocent fellow of a college the object of its

'. — persecution. In this instance one would almost

imagine there was some instinctive sagacity in the government of that time, which pointed out to them, even before he had made himself known to the world, the man who was destined to be the most successful adversary of superstition and tyranny. Forfeiture of Thc King, duriug the remainder of his reign, seems, with the exception of Armstrong's execution, which must be added to the catalogue of his murders, to have directed his attacks more against the civil rights, properties, and liberties, than against the lives of his subjects. Convictions against evidence, sentences against law, enormous fines, cruel imprisonments, were the principal engines'' employed for the purpose of breaking the spirit of individuals, and fitting their necks for the yoke. But it was not thought fit to trust wholly to the effect which such examples would produce upon the publick. That the subjugation of the people might be complete, and despotism be established upon the most solid foundation, measures of a more general nature and effect were adopted ; and first, the

* The expedient of transporting men among common felons for political offences was not then invented, which is the more extraordinary, as it had begun in this reign to be in some degree made use of in religious persecutions.

charter of London, and then those of ahnost all the chapter other corporations in England, were either forfeited,

or forced to a surrender. By this act of violence two important points were thought to be gained ; one, that in every regular assemblage of the people, in any part of the kingdom, the crown would have a commanding influence ; the other, that in case the King should find himself compelled to break his engagement to France, and to call a parliament, a great majority of members would be returned by electors of his nomination, and subject to his controul. In the affair of th^ charter of London, it was seen, as in the case of ship-money, how idle it is to look to the integrity of judges for a barrier against royal encroachments, when the courts of justice are not under the constant and vigilant controul of Parliament. And it is not to be wondered at that, after such a warning, and with no hope of seeing a Parliament assemble, even they who still retained their attachment to the true constitution of their country, should rather give way to the torrent, than make a fruitless and dangerous resistance.