ffki . v •. ' BRITISH HISTORY AND PAPAL CLAIMS With Forty-five full-page Illustrations by J. Finnemore. THE STORY OF JOHN G. PATON, TOLD FOR YOUNG FOLKS. By the Rev. JAMES PATON, B.A. With Map. 8vo, cloth, 5s. Seventh Thousand. DAILY TELEGRAPH. — * In the record of thirty years good work amongst the South Sea cannibals, we have before us one of those Missionary enterprises which read almost more strangely than fiction itself. . . . There are enough hairbreadth escapes and deeds of cool — if unostentatious — courage in these pages to stock half-a-dozen ordinary books, and the forty-five graphic illustrations add much to the attraction of the text.' JOHN G. PATON, D.D. MISSIONARY TO THE NEW HEBRIDES. * AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Edited by His Brother, the Rev. JAMES PATON, B.A. Popular Edition. Completing an Issue of 24,000. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6s. DAILY CHRONICLE. — ' One of the best autobiographies we have ever read. It is can dour itself, and bears the impress of truth on every page. We turn to the frontispiece and study the excellent portrait of the author, and then we begin to apprehend how the thing is done. The countenance breathes of spiritual refinement and undying zeal. Indeed, it would take a very incorrigible Agnostic all his time not to fall in love with Dr. Paton and his noble work.' Original Edition, in Two Volumes. Price 6s. each. LONDON: HODDER %l STOUGHTON. BRITISH HISTORY AND PAPAL CLAIMS FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST TO THE PRESENT DAY BY JAMES PATON, B.A. MINISTER OF ST. PAUL'S, GLASGOW IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. I. — A.D. 1 066- I 760 •Curia Eomana — Crujc 9Sritanrtoritm ' LONDON HODDER & STOUGHTON 27 PATERNOSTER ROW 1893 03 ' And here I do desire those into whose hands this Work shall fall, that they do take in good part my long insisting upon the Laws that were made in this King's Reign. Whereof I have these reasons ; . . . but chiefly because, in my judgment, it is some defect even in the best writers of History, that they do not often enough summarily deliver and set down the most memor able Laws that passed in the times whereof they writ, being indeed the principal ACTS OF Peace. For, though they may be had in original books of Law themselves ; yet that informeth not the judgment of Kings and Counsellors and persons of Estate, so well as to see them described and entered in the table and portrait of the Times' BACON, History of King Henry VII., vol. i. p. 751. (Bohn's Edition, 1871.) PREFACE T F this History has in any fair degree realised the aim of its Author, it will in course of time be accepted as a complete and final authority on the questions at issue. These questions cluster around the two words, Parliament and Popery, and the relations in which these have stood to each other. I mean, specifically, the Political relations ; for Roman Catholicism, as a Religion, has been only indirectly referred to in these pages. 'Concessions to Popery' I have interpreted as meaning to the 'Claims of the Papacy,' or, as our forefathers phrased it, to the ' Court of Rome.' Hence, the almost exclusive source of this History has been found in the Journals of Parliament and in the Imperial Statutes. It is on that account that I presume to anticipate for the Work an authoritative place in this branch of literature. Facts are here correctly stated, events truly depicted, and original records faithfully reproduced. I cannot write — no one has written — a colourless History. I make no claim to the impossible. But I do believe VI PREFACE that every man — be he Roman Catholic, or Evan gelical Protestant, or Religious Indifferentist — will find here an impartial picture of events, an unassailable record of facts, and an unimpeachable outline of evidence, — all drawn from Parliamentary documents and the original sources of our National History. The whole plan of the work will be understood from the descriptive titles of the several books into which it has been divided. Book I. 'The Struggle for Supremacy; or, King versus Pope' (1066 — 1603). Book II. The Stuart Reaction; or, King and Pope versus Parliament' (1603 — 1688). Book III. 'The Revolution Settlement ; or, Parliament versus Pope and King' (1688— 1702). And Book IV. 'The Modern Reaction; or, Pope versus Parliament' (1702 —1892). Placed in this convenient form in the hands of the Public, all the treasures of Hansard, and of his predecessors in the field — Parliamentary Debates, carrying us back to 1803 .' and Parliamentary History, back from that date to the beginning of our Parliaments — so far as they bear upon the theme of this work, now become the possession of every ordinary reader of books, instead of being buried away in hundreds of unmanageable tomes. Hence forth, should ignorance misquote, or bigotry misapply, any of these memorable events in our National History, the corrective is here in every man's hand. PREFACE VU The Records of Parliament are the final authority, beyond which there is no appeal. In the abiding and — from the nature of the case — inevitable conflict between the Claims of the Papacy, Political rather than Religious, and the Rights and Privileges of all States that prize independent Constitutional Government and Protestant Liberty of Religion, — the most wise and beneficent influence that any man can bring to bear is the Lesson of History ; that is, of History truly and fairly told, and left to carry its Divine and unbiassed message to every truth-seeking soul. That influence I do, through this book, sincerely and ingenuously hope to exercise, ' for the good of my Country, in the maintenance and defence of Constitutional Freedom, both Civil and Religious. And I calmly await the verdict of Time and of enlightened Intelligence. JAMES PATON. Glasgow, March 1893. ABBREVIATIONS. P. H. = Parliamentary History. Cobbett's, afterwards Hansard 's, in all, thirty-six vols. P. D. = Parliamentary Debates. Hansard's Four Series, in all, four hundred ana twenty-nine vols. CORRECTION. Vol. i. pp. 140, 141. For Apello read Appello. NOTE. For the connecting links, supplied by events outside the pages of Hansard, the Author, besides occasional references to Hume and Macaulay, has made free use, and desires to make full acknowledgment of the ' Short History of the English People ' by John Richard Green. GROUND PLAN OF HISTORY BOOK FIRST THE STRUGGLE FOR SUPREMACY King versus Pope a.d. 1066 — 1603 (From the Norman Conquest till the Death of Elizabeth) BOOK SECOND THE STUART REACTION King and Pope versus Parliament A.D. 1603 — 1688 (From the Accession of James 1. till the Abdication of James n.) BOOK THIRD THE REVOLUTION SETTLEMENT Parliament versus Pope and King a.d. 1688 — 1702 (From the Abdication of James II. till the Death of William III.) BOOK FOUETH THE MODERN REACTION Pope versus Parliament a.d. 1702 — 1892 (From the Accession of Queen Anne till the Present Day) CONTENTS BOOK FIRST THE STRUGGLE FOR SUPREMACY CHAP. PAGE I. — The Gage of Battle, . . . ... . . 3 II. — Preliminary Skirmishes, 14 III. — The Triangular Duel, 23 IV. — The Craft in Danger, 34 V. — The Tug of War — Henry viii. and the Papacy, . 40 VI. — The Good King Edward and the Bloody Mary, . 68 VII. — The Stately Days of Great Elizabeth, ... 85 BOOK SECOND THE STUART REACTION I. — Your Own Kindly King, 115 II. — Carolus Tyrannus, 140 III. — Charles and the Popish Party, . . . .171 IV. — The Civil War and the Commonwealth, . . 196 V. — Carolus Secundus Mendax,, 212 VI. — Prospects and Perils of Popery on the Throne, 245 VII.— Three Kingdoms for a Mass, 290 Xll CONTENTS BOOK THIRD THE REVOLUTION SETTLEMENT CHAP. PAGE I.— From the Hague to St. James's Palace, . . . 319 II. — Convention-Parliament and Claim of Rights, . 337 III. — William's Wise Proposals, 356 IV. — Scenes of Agony and Glory, 372 V. — The Year of Boyne Water, 396 VI. — Peace with Honour, 413 VII. — Farewell to William, 428 BOOK FOURTH THE MODERN REACTION I. — The Last of the Stuarts, 449 II. — The Georges and the Jacobites, . . . .481 {Continued in Vol. II.) SYNOPSIS VOLUME FIRST BOOK I THE STRUGGLE FOR SUPREMACY Chapter i — The Gage of Battle PAGE Basis— Parliamentary Records, and National Statutes, . . 3 Dim Foreshadowings of a Parliament, 720-1030 . ... 3 No Papal Supremacy in Saxon and Anglo-Saxon Times, . . 4 Wilfrid's Appeal to Rome, and Edgar's Royal Supremacy, . 4 ' Tudor' Supremacy a Misnomer, witness Edward the Confessor, 5 William the Conqueror's Claim of Supremacy over the Church, 6 His Defiance of the Supremacy claimed by Pope Gregory vil, . 6 William Rufus versus Anselm, re the Recognition of Urban II., 6 Pope Paschal's Complaint against the Royal Supremacy, . . 7 Convention of Estates of the Realm by Henry I., in 1107, . . 8 Convention of Estates at Clarendon by Henry II., in 1 164, . 8 Constitutions of Clarendon ; Old and New Legislation, . . 9 Resistance by Thomas a Becket, and his Death in 1 170, . . 10 Magna Charta Libertatum, no Novelty in 1215, .... 10 Most memorable of all its Articles, the Freeman and his Peers, 1 1 King John's Deposition by, and Surrender to, Innocent III., . 1 1 Concessions to the Papacy even in Magna Charta itself, . . 12 England's Grievances against the Pope in 1246, . . . 13 Combatants introduced — Pope, King, and Parliament, . . 13 Chapter ii — Preliminary Skirmishes Edward outlaws the Clergy, and seizes their Possessions, 1297, . 14 Bygot of Norfolk defies Edward to send him to France, . . 15 Wild Reprisals of Edward against Papal Abuses, . .15 Edward's Jealousy, — the Pope as Benedict Cajetan, 1299, . 15 XIV SYNOPSIS Refusal to treat Scotland as a Fief of the See of Rome, Bristling Message to the Pope regarding William Testa, 1307, Alien Priories seized by Edward III., in 1338, The King's Tussle with the Archbishop of Canterbury, 1341, Parliament renounces the Arbitrament of the Pope in 1343, The First Statute of Provisors, 1343 (founded on 1307), Letter from Parliament to Pope Clement at Avignon, Seizure of the Possessions of the Foreign Clergy, in 1346, Bulls from the Pope prohibited without the King's Leave, The Second Statute of Provisors, 135 1, Parliament's Reply to the Pope's Claim of Vassalage, 1366, PAGE 16 Chapter hi— The Triangular Duel The Commons and the Taxing of the Clergy, 1380, . Statute of Heresy surreptitiously passed, 1381-1382, . Persecution of Wyclifife and the Lollards, . Protestation for the Pope's Authority, defied, 1390, . The Profane Statute and the Statute of Mortmain, 1390, The Statute of Appropriations, 1390, Attacks on the Statute of Provisors, 1392-93, Archbishop Courtney's Protestation against the Pope, Act ' De Comburendo Heretico,' 1401, Re-enactment of Provisors, and Praemunire, 1401, . Proposal to seize the Revenues of the Clergy, 1405, . The Long and Bloody Bill against the Lollards, 1406, Another Attack upon the Revenues of the Clergy, 1410, Sir J. Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, a Reformer before the Reformation, King and Clergy defying a Papal Bull, 1412, Chapter iv— The Craft in Danger Henry V. safeguards the Royal Supremacy, 1413, Act for Sweeping off all Priors who are Aliens, . The Merciless Statute against the Lollards, 1414, Attack on the Revenues of the Clergy fiercely renewed Diversion created by the Wars with France, SYNOPSIS XV Cardinal Beaufort relieved of Praemunire, 1429, Bishops' Attempt to Repeal the Statute, 1449, . . . . Bacon on the Paring of the Privileges of Clergy by Henry VII.. PAGE 37 3839 Chapter v— The Tug of War The Champion of Popery becomes Pope of England, 1509- 1547 Cardinal Wolsey ' invades ' the House of Commons, 1523, Wolsey's grievous Blunders, and great Fall, Articles of Impeachment, — their Bearing on the Supremacy, Cardinal's Authority inconsistent with the Laws of England, Acquittal, Re-arrestment, and Death of Wolsey, 1530, Herbert's ' Great and Broad Sally ' towards the Reformation, Fisher's Defence of the Clergy against the Commons, Great Anonymous Speech on Private Judgment, A Tentative Reformation, — its Limitations, Letter from Parliament to the Pope, 1530, . Pope Clement's Reply, — Signs of Alarm, . Answers from Universities laid before the Commons. Complaint of Commons against the Clergy, 1532, The King's ' Half-Subjects,' .... Catherine divorced, and Anne Boleyn crowned, 1533. The Act of Supremacy in favour of the King, 1535, The Suppression of Lesser Monasteries, 1536, . Henry's many Wives, and many Acts of Succession, A Message of Peace from the Pope, 1537, • Utter Abolition of the Papal Jurisdiction, 1537, . The Great Seal versus Papal Bulls, etc., Cromwell cajoling the Abbots and Priors, 1537-1539, Fall of the Greater Monasteries and Abbeys, 1540, The Six Articles of Religion, and the Bloody Bill, 1540, The Two Committees on Religious Affairs, 1541, Death of Cromwell, 'Vicar-General in Spirituals,' 1541. Cranmer's Act, — a Jumble of Popery and Protestantism, 1543 Henry's Last Prorogation Speech, 1 546, .... His Crown of Glory, despite all Deductions, 1547, XVI SYNOPSIS Chapter vi — Good King Edward and Bloody Mary Reaction inevitable, but slightly delayed, 1547-1553, . Lord Protector Seymour — a Political Reformer only, The Sacrament of the Altar and the Puritans, 1547, . Bishops, once Creatures of the Pope, now of the'.King, Further Suppression of Chauntries and Colleges, 1547, Repeal of Statutes against Liberty of Conscience, Act of Uniformity, and Book of Service, 1549, . Act for Allowing Priests to Marry, 1549, The Marriage of the Clergy — Supplementary Act, 1552, Enactments regarding Eating Fish and Flesh, 1549, . Anent the Enforcement of Ecclesiastical Laws, . Images and Prayers to Saints prohibited, 1550, . New Book of Common Prayer, and Compulsory Service, 1552, Reaction as to Holy Days, and Death of Edward, 1553, Repeal of all King Edward's Laws about Religion, 1553, The First Parliament of Philip and Mary, 1554, Reversal of Cardinal Pole's Attainder, .... Cardinal Pole's Oration to both Houses, The Legate's Demand for Submission to the Holy See, Humiliating Supplication to the Cardinal Legate, Lords and Commons receive Absolution on their Knees, Repeal of all Statutes against the See of Rome, . Acts against Heresy revived, and Persecution begun, 1555 Thirty-seven Noble Protesters and Seceders, Restoration of Church Lands, etc., by Mary, 1558, Best Full-page Illustration of Papal Claims, PAGE 6868 6969707071 7273 7374 74 75 7677 77787980 81 8282 8283 8384 Chapter vii— The Stately Days of Great Elizabeth The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth, 1559, .... 8; The Old and the New Privy Councillors, . ... 85 The First Cause to be submitted to Parliament, ... 86 Restitution of First Fruits and Tenths to the Crown, . . 87 SYNOPSIS XVll Act Restoring the Royal Supremacy, 1559, Nicholas Heath, Archbishop, sets forth the Papal Claims, Cuthbert Scott, Bishop, on the ' Power of the Keys,' . Mc ~gue, the solitary Peer on the Papal side, . . . Restu. don of Edward's Liturgy, and Order of Service, 1559, Dr. Feckenham's Speech to the Peers, — the last of the Abbots The Bishop of Chesters Defence of Popery, Elizabeth's State Procession to Westminster Abbey, 1562, Act for Assuring the Queen's Supremacy, 1562, . Lord Montague's Defence of Papists as not Dangerous, . Mr. Atkinson's Attack upon the Rigours of the Act, . Abettors of Papal Jurisdiction declared Traitors, Bull of Excommunication enacted by Pius v., 1571, . Acts of Parliament counter-checking the Papal Bull, Elizabeth as Head'of the Church — a Female Pope, 1572, . Questions of Internal Reform, not within our Scope, . Sir Walter Mildmay on the Pope and his Confederates, 1581, The Mind of the England of that Day undisturbed, . Drastic Measure against Jesuits and Priests, 1586, Secret Enemies and the Forfeiture of Rights of Citizenship, The Spanish Invasion, from Parliamentary Records, 1588, Sir Christopher Hatton on the Plans of Pope and Princes, Destruction of the Armada, as described to Parliament, 1589, Adherents of the Papacy treated as Enemies of England, . Popish Recusants — 'Vagrant and Seditious Persons,' Burleigh and Cecil on the Pope and his Confederates, 1593, The Perils of these Times — Egerton and Cecil, 1601, Verdict of Parliament on the Loyalty of Roman Catholics, Tit-bits passed over — Personality of Elizabeth, . World-famous Names — Edward Coke and Francis Bacon, Present-Day Questions — Drunkenness and Sabbath Observance. Queenliness and Insolence of Elizabeth illustrated, . Every Concession to the Papacy cancelled or withdrawn, 1603, PAGE 87 9091 91 92 93 9494 95 96 97 97989999 101102 103.103 104 105106 107 107 108 108 109 nono 111in VOL. I. XV111 SYNOPSIS BOOK II THE STUART REACTION Chapter i — Your own kindly King Beginning and Issue of the Reactionary Conflict, . . . 115 Coronation of James 1. of England, 25th July 1603, . . 115 King's Speech to First English Parliament, 1604, . .116 State of Religion — Clerics and Laics, . ... .117 The Deposing Power, and the Murder of Excommunicated Princes, 1 17 Divided Allegiance — ' But Half my Subjects,' . . 118 Union of the Kingdoms, and Reformation of the Church, . . 119 Montague's Defence of Popery — the Temper of Parliament, . 119 The Speaker to the King, — Rhetoric run Mad, 1604, . . . 120 New Royal Title — King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, . 121 Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot, 5th November 1605, . . 121 The King's Speech on the Plotters and their Motives, . . 122 Popery not a Religion, but a Seditious Conspiracy, . . . 124 The State Monks and their New Divinity, 1606, . 124 Acts for Annual Thanksgiving, and against Popish Recusants, . 125 Proclamation against Abettors of Papal Claims, 1610, . . 125 The Disablement of Implacable Enemies, 126 King James on the Increase of Popery, 1614, .... 127 Anti-Popish Measures, — Petition of both Houses to the King, . 128 The Fall of Lord Chancellor Bacon, 162 1, 128 Pymme (or Pym) on the Popularity of the Popish Party, . . 129 Coke on exacting Double Subsidies from Papists, . .129 Petition and Remonstrance against the Spanish Match, 1621, . 129 James playing at being Absolutist and Tyrant, .... 131 Struggle and Protestation concerning Liberties of Parliament, . 132 The Rider and his Horse,— James's idea of Parliament, 1624, . 133 Joint Petition of both Houses against Popish Recusants, . . 134 Removal of Recusants from Offices of Power and Trust, . . 135 Complaint against Bishop of Norwich, and his Apologia, . . 136 Petition against Popish Books and Pamphlets, . . . 138 Death of James,— the Craft of the Stuart Nature, 1625, . . 139 SYNOPSIS XIX PAGE 140 140142 143144 145 Chapter ii— Carolus Tyrannus First Parliament — the Speaker on the Jesuit Locusts, 1625, Storm over Appello Caesarem, and the King's Interference, Grand Conference on Religion, — Parliament at Oxford, Petition of both Houses — regarding the Increase of Papists, Charles's Reply — first Lesson as to Faith in the Word of a King, The King's Speech by Proxy, and the Speaker's Testimony, 1626, Unfortunate Likes and Dislikesof Charles, — Coke, Buckingham, etc., 146 Impeachment of Buckingham, Members sent to the Tower, . 146 Seizure and Release of Diggs, Elliot, and Arundel, . . . 147 Impeachment of Bristol, and Interference of the King, . . 148 King and Parliament, — Declarations and Remonstrances, . 148 Another Parliament, — Grievances before Supply, 1627, . . 149 Conference of both House on Laws against Recusants, . . 1 50 Their Petition, — a perfect Reflex of the Times, . . . . 151 Great Debates on the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects, . 152 Genesis of the first famous Petition of Right, 1628, . . . 153 Dr. Manwaring's book on Religion and Allegiance condemned, 155 Final Answer of Charles to the Petition of Right, . . . 156 Analysis of the Petition of Right of 1628, 157 Foundations of Freedom, against Popes, against Kings, . . 158 Constitutional Liberty versus Absolute Despotism, . . . 158 Grievances in Religion, — the Resolution of the Commons, 1629, 159 Sir John Elliot's Speech, and First Appearance of Cromwell, . 160 Impressions of Oliver, by Warrick, Hampden, and Maidstone, . 161 Articles for Religion, — Dangers, Causes, and Remedies, . . 162 House ordered, and refusing, to adjourn ; Protestation, . . 164 Parliament dissolved, — the Making of our Constitution, 1629, . 166 Eleven Years' Attempt at Despotism, without a Parliament, 1629-40, 167 John Hampden and the Ship Money, — Strafford and Laud, . 167 Petitions, Grievances, and Supply, in Parliament of 1640, . . 168 Pym on Grievances in Religion, — Encouragements to Popery, . 169 Charles forced to summon Parliament again, 3d November 1640, 170 The Two-fold Issue, essentially one, Civil and Religious Liberty, 170 SYNOPSIS Chapter hi — Charles and the Popish Party PAGE The Popish Party in Relation to the Civil War, .... 171 The Long Parliament, and Grievances in Religion, 1640, . . 171 Petition against Prelates, and the Root and Branch Bill, . 172 Bishop Joseph Hall's Speech in Defence of the Church, . . 173 Protestation of the Bishops, and Impeachment for High Treason, 174 Bishops deprived of Votes, and Episcopacy abolished, 1641-1642, 175 Impeachment of Laud of Canterbury for High Treason, 1640, . 175 The Affair of Goodman, the Seminary Priest, 1641, ... 176 The Elder Prince of Orange and the Lady Mary, ... 178 The Incompatibility of our Laws and Popery, . . . 178 Strafford condemned of High Treason, despite the King, . . 179 Petition from 20,000 Citizens of London against Papists, . . 179 A Parliamentary Protestation and National Oath, 1641, . . 179 Propositions on State of Kingdom, and Posture of Defence, . 180 News of Irish Massacre, and its Effects in Britain, ... 181 The Parliamentary Guards, — a Petition and Remonstrance, . 182 Popery — ' another State within this State' — must be disabled, . 183 Not a Religion but a Conspiracy, — Refusal of Toleration, . . 183 The King and the Arrest of the Five Members, 1642, . . 184 The Verdict of All England on the Popish Party and the King, 185 The Civil War, its Real Origin, and its True Issues, . . . 186 The Ordinance concerning the Militia, a Vital Struggle, 1642, . 187 Declaration of both Houses as to Causes of Fears and Jealousies, 189 Grievances and Evils, with Proposed Remedies and Cures, . 190 The King and the Parliament countermanding each other, . 190 Ultimatum to the King — the Nineteen Propositions, . . . 192 The King's Commission of Array, and Parliament's Army, . 192 Grounds and Reasons for taking up Arms, 1642, . . . 193 Cavaliers, Roundheads, and Cromwell's First Victory, . . 193 The Standard of the King, and the Messages for Peace, . . 194 The Battle of Edge Hill, 23d October, and its Issues, . . 194 The Protestation of Parliament regarding the ' Popish Party,' . 195 SYNOPSIS XXI Chapter iv — The Civil War and the Commonwealth PAGE Negotiations for Peace, and the Question of Concessionsto Popery, 196 Ordinance of Parliament, — Intentions of the Popish Party, 1643, 197 Plot against Parliament, and its Issue in a Protestant Oath, . 197 Solemn League and Covenant, with its Three Mottoes from Scripture, 198 'Explications' subjoined to it by the Westminster Divines, . 199 Swearing of Covenant at 'St. Margaret's, 25th September 1643, '99 Analysis of the Covenant, — its Six Articles and Aims, . . 200 A Fair Ideal for these Three Kingdoms under Christ, . 201 King versus Parliament now, — means King and Pope in One, . 202 Battles of Marston Moor and Newbury, July and October 1644, 202 Self-Denying Ordinance — the Exclusion of Members from Offices, 202 Cromwell's Speech, — Essex, etc., resign their Commissions, 1645, 203 Dispensations to Cromwell, — ' Forty Days longer ; '—Sinister Light 203 ' King's Cabinet Opened,' — after Battle of Naseby, 1645, . . 203 Surrender of Charles, — Disposal of the King's Person, 1646- 1647, 204 Army versus Parliament — Fairfax enters London, 1647, . . 205 Four Bills presented to Charles, and by him refused, . . 205 Wild Speeches, and Threats of Impeaching the King, 1648, . 206 The Tide everywhere turning in the King's Favour, July 1648, . 206 News of Preston, — the King delivered to the Army, — ' Pride's Purge,' 207 The Commons declare themselves the Supreme Power, 1649, . 207 Charles Four Times declines the Authority of the Court, . . 208 Martyr — Traitor — Carolus Tyrannus, Charles the Tyrant, . . 208 Toleration in the Puritan Years, — ' not extended to Popery,' . 208 Cromwell, and 'that Fool's Bauble the Mace,' 1653, . . . 209 Barebone's Parliament and the Surrender of their Power, . 209 Cromwell's Second Parliament, — brusquely dissolved, 1655, . 209 His Third Parliament, — Offer of Kingship to Cromwell, 1657, 210 Position of England at Cromwell's Death 3d September 1658, 210 Naylor's Persecution ; Cromwell's ' Instrument of Government,' 211 xxii SYNOPSIS Chapter v— Carolus Secundus Mendax PAGE' Richard Cromwell's Demission and Quiet Career, 1658-1712, . 212 The Rump Parliament, and the Council of Officers, 1659, . 213 The Committee of Safety, and General Monk, .... 213 Dissolution of the Rump, and Meeting of the Convention, 1660, 214 Declarations and Hypocritical Letters of Charles Rex, 1660, . 214 Restoration of Government by King, Lords, and Commons, . 216 Old Denzil Hollis at Breda, and the Golden Age, . . . 216 Carolus Mendax as Defender of the Faith and King of Hearts, . 217 Burnet's Photograph of the Characteristics of the King, 217 Oath of Supremacy and Oath of Allegiance as at 1660, . . 218 Other Weapons than Oaths required to disable Popery, 220 Great Debates on Religion, — Prelacyand the Prayer-Book restored, 221 The Indemnity Bill, with its Infamous Exceptions, . . . 222 Chancellor Hyde defeats Mad Proposals as to Royal Revenue, . 223 The Pensionary Parliament, — Marvel's 'Venal Cowards,' 1661, . 223 Famous Political Tract, — ' Popery and Arbitrary Power,' . . 224 The Times, — ' Great Outburst of Drunkenness and Excess,' . 224 Taking the Sacrament, and Burning the Solemn League, 1661, . 225 The Act of Uniformity, — a Retaliatory Measure, 1662, . . 225 Two Thousand Non-conformist Ministers, .... 226 ' Declaration in Favour of Indulgence ' issued by the King, . 226 Subtle State-Craft, — ' Popery the Mother of Persecution,' . . 227 Plea of Charles before Parliament for Power of Indulgence, 1663, 227 Address of the Commons against the Proposal, . . . 227 Plea of Parliament for Proclamation of Papists, . . . . 228 Five-Mile Act, and the Non-Resisting Oath, 1665, . . 229 ' Annus Mirabilis,' and the Insolence and Increase of Popery, 1 666, 230 Bill for the Suppressing of Conventicles, 1670, .... 231 Growth of Popery,— Alleged Causes, and Proposed Remedies, . 232 The Proclamation, — Charles's Politics and Courtesans, . 234 The 'Declaration for Indulgence,' suspending the Laws, 1672, . 234 ' Dispensing with Penal Laws, — dispensing with All Laws, 1673,' 235 Great Crisis, — the King and Lords versus the Commons, . 236 SYNOPSIS XXU1 PAGE Our Religion and our Country shamelessly bought and sold, . 237 Declaration of Indulgence cancelled and destroyed, . . 238 ' Bill of Ease to Protestant Dissenters,' — Heads proposed, . 238 Sacheverell's Motion, — ' Removal of Papists from Military Com mand,' 239 The ' Test Act,'— Papists and Public Employments, . 240 Defence of the ' Further Test,' by Papist, the Early Bristol, . 241 The Court Party, the Evil Counsellors, and the ' Act of Grace,' . 243 Results of the Test Act, — Resignation of the Duke of York, etc., 243 Papists declared to be Public Enemies of the Kingdom, 1673, . 244 Chapter vi— Prospects and Perils of Popery on the Throne Protest of Parliament against the ' Duke's Match,' 1673, • Refusal of Supply till Grievances be redressed, . Second Address against the Duke's Match, with Plain Counsels The 'Standing Army ' voted a National Grievance, 1673, . The Grievance of ' Evil Counsellors,' — Sudden Prorogation, Three Leaders of the Cabal put on their Defence, 1674, Temper of the Nation, — the Articles against Arlington, 'Non-Resisting Test,' — Locke's Famous 'Letter,' 1675, 'Passive Obedience,' — the Badge of the Popish Party, Bill ' Facing Both Ways,' — on Education of Royal Family, 1677 Bill belying its Title, — ' For preserving the Protestant Religion, Marriage of Princess Mary to the Prince of Orange, . ' State of the Nation,' — Dangers from Growth of Popery, 1678, Expulsion of Sir Solomon Swale as a ' Popish Recusant,' . Bill for ' Hindering Papists from sitting in either House,' . Debate, — Trevor, Littleton, Wheeler, and Powle, The Discovery or Invention of the Popish Plot, 1678, Gist of Sworn Informations thereanent, Publication of Coleman's Letters,— the Real Panic, . The Magistrate, Sir Edmondbury Godfrey's Assassination, The King's Speech, and the Commons' Resolution to inquire, Address against Recusants, and Bill to disable Papists, . 245 246 247247248 248 249249 250 251 252253 254 255256 257257258259260 260 261 XXIV. SYNOPSIS PAGE Verdict of the Commons as to the Reality of the Plot, ,.- . 262 Lord Russell's Motion for the Removing of the Duke of York, . 262 Revelations of, Oates and Bedloe — Impeachments and Suspicions, 263 Two Overt Causes — Foreign Alliances and Popish Concessions, 264 Execution of Supposed Plotters and Assassins, 1679, • 264 New Parliament, Anti-Popish — the Duke's Withdrawal, . . 265 Constitutional Wrangle— King refusing the Speaker-elect, . 265 Finding of this Parliament also as to the Reality of the Plot, . 266 Shaftesbury on the Twin Sisters — Popery and Slavery, . 266 Exclusion of the Duke from the Succession to the Crown, . . 267 Charles, refusing Exclusion, proffers certain Limitations, . . 268 Debate and Resolution in Favour of a Disabling Bill, . . 269 Analysis of Contents of the Exclusion Bill of 1679, • • • 270 Habeas Corpus Act — Passing of an Amended Edition, . . 271 Meal-Tub Plot ; Petitioners and Abhorrers ; Whig and Tory, . 271 Opening Speech of Charles to his Parliament of 1680, . 272 Debate — ' How to prevent a Popish Succession,' . . . 272 Bill for Disabling and Disinheriting the Duke of York, . 273 Debate — Jenkins, Hampden, Message from the King, . . 273 Sir William Jones on the Absolute Necessity of the Exclusion, . 274 Debate, and Rejection of Bill, by Lords — the King present, . 275 Three Resolutions on Popery and Arbitrary Government, . 275 Address in Reply — the Expectation of a Popish Successor, 276 The Association Bill for Self-Defence among Protestants, 277 Exclusion Bill refused by King on any Terms, 1681, . 277 Refusal of Supplies — Hampden, Jones, Pulteney, Titus, . 278 Five-barrelled Resolution passed by the Commons, . . 279 Deadlock, Parliament again prorogued and dissolved, . 279 New Parliament at Oxford — ' No Popery ! No Slavery ! ' 1681, 280 The King's Speech — defiant and irreconcileable, . . . 281 Debate on Exclusion, and on Security of the Protestant Religion, 281 The Fitzharris Plot, and his Impeachment by the Commons, . 282 Secretary Jenkins, disobeying the House, brought to his Knees, 282 Motion to bring in again the Exclusion Bill — debated, . 283 The Regency Proposal amongst other Expedients, . . . 284 SYNOPSIS xxv PAGE The Exclusion Bill revived — Parliament dissolved, 1681, . . 284 ' Royal Declaration to the People ' by Carolus Secundus Mendax, 285 Four Years' Reign in Defiance of Parliaments, 1681-1685, . 285 The Universities on the Inviolability of the Succession, . . 286 Triumph of Charles, the Duke's Return, Shaftesbury's Trial, . 286 Rye-House Plot, Packed Juries and Exclusionists, 1683, . 286 The Court's Revenge — Russell, Sydney, Hampden, etc., . 287 The Popish Lords .; the Charters of Free Municipalities, . . 287 The Standing Army ; the Triumph of Arbitrary Power and Popery, 2&8 The Death-bed of Charles — Hypocrite and Libertine, 1685, . 288 Every Question that can arise already grappled with, . . 288 Chapter vii — Three Kingdoms for a Mass Accession of James under happy Auspices, 1685, . . 290 Speech to Privy Council, and Proclamation to People, . 290 Marvellous Burst of National Loyalty, . . . 291 Determination to give the Popish Prince a Chance, . . 292 First and only Parliament of James 11., . . . . 292 New Peers, and Petition from the Popish Lords, . . . 292293 294295 296 The King's Menacing Opening Speech, Revenue settled on his Majesty ' for Life,' . ' Report on Religion ' — and Proposed Resolutions, Vote of Confidence in the Bare Word of the King, Risings under Argyle and Monmouth utilized by James, . 296 The Bloody Assize, — indirectly the Salvation of British Liberty, 297 Judge Jeffreys inspired and sanctioned by the King, . . 297 The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, . 297 The King's Plans laid bare in Barillon's Despatches, . . 298 Speech to Parliament, — the Standing Army, and the Test Acts, 299 The Court Party, and the Votes of Thanks in Lords and Commons, 300 Great Constitutional Debate, — the Two Resolutions carried, . 301 The Court Party, and the Commons, — an Impassable Gulf, 302 Address of Commons, and King's Last Words to Parliament, . 303 xxvi SYNOPSIS PAGE Crisis in our History, — Mr. Coke sent to the Tower, . . . 304 Debate in the Lords, — Jeffreys browbeating the Peers, . . 305 James's last Constitutional Weapon, — Prorogation, . . . 306 Ruling without a Parliament, — our Clew lost, 1685-1687 , . . 306 The Judges declare that the King can dispense with the Test, . 307 Logical Corollary, — the Anti-Popery Laws dispensed with, . 307 Army on Hounslow Heath, — Liberty as well as Religion at Stake, 307 Ecclesiastical Commission, — Suspension of Church Laws, 308 Invasion of the Universities, — James himself visits Oxford, . 309 Perversion of the Nobility, and Arrival of Papal Nuncio, . 310 Apostasy demanded as the Price of Loyalty, . . .310 Declaration of Indulgence, — a Trap for Protestant Dissenters, 1687, 31 1 Not a Bad Apologia, — if it could be judged on its Merits, . . 312 Protestantism and Liberty versus Popery and Arbitrary Power, 312 The Fresh Indulgence, and the Protest of the Bishops, . . 313 Trial and Acquittal of the Patriotic Bishops, .... 313 Prince of Orange arrives in Torbay, 5th November 1688, . . 314 Helpless and Hopeless Panic of James Stuart, . . . 314 Every Question of our Days, already fought out in Principle, 315 Irrefragable Testimony, and Trumpet-blast of our History, . 316 BOOK III THE REVOLUTION SETTLEMENT Chapter i — From The Hague to St. James's Palace First Page of Modern History, — our Constitutional Government, 319 The Clew to our History, — the Claims of the Papacy, . . 319 William's Caution, and the Blunder of Lewis in 1688, . . 320 First Declaration of the Prince, — a Noble Manifesto, . 320 Analysis, — the Preamble on Religion and Civil Rights, 321 Arbitrary Government, and the Judges on the Dispensing Power, 321 SYNOPSIS xxvil PAGE 322 The Annulling and Abolishing of all Oaths and Tests, Magna Charta overridden by the Ecclesiastical Commission, . 322 Despotic and Arbitrary Power in Civil and Military Affairs, . 323 Dismal Effects in Ireland and Scotland, as well as England, . 323 Last and Great Remedy, — a Free and Lawful Parliament, . 324 Violent Presumptions regarding the Pretended Prince of Wales, 324 Aims of William— Religion, Laws, Liberties of three Kingdoms, 325 Key- Words of the Revolution, — Popery and Arbitrary Power, . 326 Addendum on the Tactics of King James and his Counsellors, . 326 The Counterfeit Declaration, — a Fire-winged Message, . . 327 Answer of James to the Prince, — Bitter Accusations, . . . 329 Petition of the Protestant Lords, presented by the Archbishops, 330 General Pardon, Free Parliament, and Treaty with the Prince, 330 William's Stern Proposals as Preliminary Conditions, . . 330 The Paper of Lord Devonshire, and the Nottingham Paper, . 331 Double-headed Despotism, — a Pope and a Tyrant, . . . 332 The Guildhall Declaration and Welcome to William, . . 332 William's Speech to the Peers at St. James's, . . . 333 Administration of Affairs offered to the Prince, .... 334 James's Farewell Manifesto, — on Liberty of Conscience, . . 334 Advice of Peers as to Summoning a New Parliament, . . 334 The City Fathers and Commoners in Council together, . . 335 Address of Welcome, and Offer of Administration of Affairs, 335 Modest and Manful Answer of Prince of Orange, . . . 336 Chapter ii— Convention Parliament and Claim of Rights The Grand Convention at Westminster, 22d January 1689, . 337 Letter from the Prince of Orange to the Convention, . . 337 Address to the Prince, and the Prince's Answer, . . 338 The Grand Alliance, and the Centre of Battle, .... 33? Debate, — State of the Nation, and Question of Abdication, 340 First Stage,— the Throne is declared to be Vacant, ... 342 Second Stage,— Popish Sovereign versus Safety and Welfare, . 343 XXV111 SYNOPSIS PAGE Third Stage, — Secure Religion and Laws and Liberties first of all, 344 Final Stage, — Appointment of Committee on Rights and Liberties, 345 Lords' Amendments, — ' Abdicated,' ' Deserted,' ' Vacant,' . . 345 Crisis of the Revolution Settlement, — Debates, Conferences, etc., 345 Amendments withdrawn, — William's and Mary's Influence, . 348 The Declaration and Claim of Rights, 13th February 1689, . 349 First 'Whereas,' — Subversion of Religion, Laws, and Liberties, 350 Second 'Whereas,' — Mal-administration in the Courts of Justice, 351 Third 'Whereas,' — Vital Claim as to Rights and Liberties, 351 Resolution of Lords and Commons regarding William and Mary, 353 The New Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, .... 353 The Crown on these Conditions Offered and Accepted, . . 354 Four-fold Proclamation of King William and Queen Mary, . 354 Chapter hi — William's wise Proposals Papal Claims at the Centre of the Events of 1689, . . . 356 William's First Message from the Throne on February 18th, . 357 The Convention declared to be a Lawful Parliament, . . 357 Settlement of King's Revenue, — a Constitutional Debate, . 358 Annual Parliaments secured by Annual Votes in Supply, . . 359 James sails for Ireland, — Vote of ' Lives and Fortunes,' . . 359 Bill for more speedy Convicting and Disarming of Papists, . 360 First of William's Great and Wise Proposals, . . . 361 Plea for Admission of all Protestants, willing to serve, . . 361 Clause abolishing Sacramental Test rejected by the Lords, . 362 Alternative Clause rejected, — Notable Protests, .... 363 Union of Protestants baffled by Prejudice and Privilege, . . 363 Second Proposal, — the Bill of Indemnity, . . . 363 Wrecked by Revengeful Debates on ' Exceptions,' ¦ . . 364 Third Proposal, — the Bill of Comprehension, .... 364 How attacked, and why finally shelved, .... ^gc The Coronation Oath,— its vitally Protestant Clauses, . . 365 The Coronation of King William and Queen Mary, 1 ith April 1689, 366 SYNOPSIS XXIX Crowning of Protestant Revolution and Protestant Settlement, The Bill of Oaths with its Non-Jurors' Proviso, . William's Fourth Proposal — the Toleration Act, ' Indulgence to Quakers ' Clause, — Significant Debates, Blots and serious Defects in this ' Bill of Indulgence,' Liberty of Worship and of Conscience for first Time legalised, Popery expected from the Toleration Act, and why, . William's ' Quickening ' Speech to both Houses, Collapse of Wisdom in this Convention Parliament, 367367368369 36937o37o 37i37i Chapter iv — Scenes of Agony and Glory Crisis of the Revolution, — in Scotland, and in Ireland, 1689, ' Black Prelacy ' and ' Bluidy Popery,' — allied in Scotland, Convention of the Three Estates at Edinburgh, 14th March, Viscount Dundee, and the Wager of Battle, Form of Vote by the Parliament of Scotland, Claim of Rights, and List of Grievances, — ' Prelacy,' . Offer of the Crown of Scotland to William and Mary, nth May. Battle of the Pass of Killiecrankie, 27th July 1689, The Revolution Crisis in Ireland, — Protestantism at Bay, . Tyrconnel, and the Flag of King James — ' Now or Never ! ' Arrival of James at Dublin on 24th March, James's Government, — Five Proclamations issued, Enniskillen, Londonderry, — Lundy and the Officers, . Apprentices, George Walker, and Council of Citizens, James's Parliament, — Great Attainder, Massacre counselled, Siege of 'Derry, — Long-drawn Agony of 105 Days, . Demon-part of the Story, — General Rosen's Stratagem, Weeks of Unutterable and Indescribable Sufferings, . The Storming of the Boom,— the City Saved, 28th July 1689, Panic of James and his Army, War against France, — Council of the Allies, Second Session of Convention Parliament, — William's Speech, 372373 373373373374374 375 376376376377377378378 379380380 38138i382 382 XXX SYNOPSIS A Foolish Parliament, — Endless Palavers on Minor Affairs, Miserable Intrigues, — Princess Anne, Sarah Jennings, etc., George Walker of 'Derry thanked by Parliament, Mr. Howe on the ' Worst State of the Nation,' . Bill of Rights, and of Succession to the Crown, . Burnett's Amendment regarding the Princess Sophia, Claim of Rights passed as an Act of Parliament, How the Bill of Rights connects itself with the Claim of Rights Declaratory and Defining Clauses introduced, . Vital Clause — Exclusion of Papists from the Throne, Royal ' Declaration ' against Transubstantiation, The Sovereignty of the People through their Representatives, Disabilities of the Bill not Religious but Political, Corporation Bill,— two Incapacitating Clauses added, 1690, Storm through all England, and William's Despair, . Great Debate, the ' Odious Clauses ' torn away, . Lords stumbling also, — the Spirit of that Parliament, William's Determination to retire from the Government, . Final Resolution, — to go to Ireland in Person and end the War, William's Speech, — and the Discomfiture of Whigs and Tories, Characteristics of the Convention-Parliament, . . . . 383384 385 385 386 386387 388 388 38838939°390 39i391392392393 393394 395 Chapter v — The Year of Boyne Water Ten Eventful Years, — the Revolution Consolidated and Defended, 396 General Election, and rearrangement of Treasury Board, 1690, . 367 Trevor, the Speaker, hoist with his own Petard, and expelled, . 397 William's Speech, — Ireland, Revenue, Indemnity, the Union, . 398 Settling the King's Revenue, and voting a Supply, . . . 399 The Recognition Bill, and the Abjuration Bill, .... 400 Suspending Habeas Corpus, and Securing the Government, . 401 Severe Resolution against Papists, and in Favour of a Test, . 401 Inquiry as to the Listing and Exercising of Papists, . . 402 William's Three Months in Ireland, — the Crisis of British History, 402 SYNOPSIS XXXI The Stuart Government in Ireland an Object-Lesson, The Centre of Battle, — William's Tenderness for Mary, William at the Head of his Army, with rising Spirits, . The Flags of the Stuart and the Bourbon waving together, The Armies facing each other across the Boyne, Elsewhere, Jacobite Plotters, and Threats of Invasion, Description of the Battle of the Boyne, 1st July 1690, Contrast, — the Protestant King, and the Popish Pretender, Flight of James, and Unwelcome Arrival at St. Germains, . Queen Mary in the Garden at Kensington, .... Provisional Government at Dublin to receive William, The Thanksgiving in Royal State at the Cathedral, . The last Wager of the Sword betwixt Popery and Protestantism, The French Fleet at Anchor in Torbay, and the Beacon, . The Ravaging of Teignmouth, and the Jacobite Prayer-Book, Siege of Limerick, — Sarsfield and Churchill, Affairs in Scotland, — the Year of Transition, Ecclesiastical Patronage, — Abolished, and again Restored, William's Letter, and the First General Assembly of the Church, PAGE 4°3 403404404404405405406407407407 408 408 408409 4IO4IO 411 411 Chapter vi— Peace with Honour The Revolution Settlement, and its one Supreme Enemy, . William to Second Session of Parliament, 2d October 1690, Congress of the Grand Allies at The Hague, Spring 1691, . Surrender of Limerick, — Ginkell pacifies Ireland, William appeals for 65,000 men for the War against France, 169 Great Jacobite Conspiracy, — the Battle of La Hogue, Useless Butcheries in the War on the Continent, 1693, Miscarriages in the War, and Bribery among Parliament Men, The ' Place-Bill,' incapacitating Members, flatly refused, . Bill for ' Naturalising Protestant Foreigners,' ' Triennial Bill' accepted as Price for the ' Tunnage Bill,' 1694, Death of Queen Mary, — William's Tenderness for her, 4i34i3 414414 415 4i54164164i7417 417 418 SYNOPSIS ' Lancashire Plot,' — its Unexpected Results, William takes Namur, — his Greatest Feat of Arms, 1695, The ' Assassination Plot,' — Barclay and Perkins, 1696, Address of Loyalty, and Pledge of Revenge, The 'Association' or 'Bond,' — its Terms and Sanctions, Overtures for Peace, and the Rescue of Brussels, 1697, Diplomatists outmanoeuvred by William and Lewis, . The Folly of the Allies, and the Insolence of Lewis, . Treaty of Ryswick, — William's Supreme Achievements, Return to England, and Triumphal Reception there, . William's pardonable Pride, — ' Peace with Honour,' . The Commons' 'Address,' atoning for all the Past, Our Glorious Deliverance, and our Glorious Deliverer, 419420 420420421 422423 424 424424425 425426 Chapter vii — Farewell to William Five Years of Consolidation and Defence, 1698-1702, . . 428 William's new Ambitions, — the Workless and the Poor, 1698, . 429 Three Social Principles, — the 'Unwilling,' 'Willing, and 'Unable,' 429 Dismissal of Dutch Guards, — William's Distress and Appeals, 1699, 430431432433 433433434 434 435 William's Ideal of a Constitutional Kingship, .... Transfer of Sovereignty, — Rise of Responsible Ministry, 1693-96, Sunderland's Counsel, and William's Statesmanship, . The Government of the Majority constitutionally realised, . 'Act for Preventing the Growth of Popery,' 1700, Forfeiture of Popish Heirs, and Banishment of Priests, Severe Proposals forced on by mere Self-Defence, Fresh Jacobite Plots, and French Intrigues, 1701, Peers' Petition to the King to disarm and remove the Disaffected, 435 New Bill of Succession, — ' Sophia, and the Protestant Line,' . 435 The ' Kentish Petition,'— Five Members sent to Prison, . . 436 The ' Legion Letter ' to the Speaker, with ' Memorial ' enclosed, 437 Prorogation of Parliament, and the Petitioners' Banquet, . . 438 The King's Legacy to his own and all Protestant Peoples, . 438 SYNOPSIS XXX1U PAGE Last Speech to both Houses of Parliament, 30th December, 1701, 438 The Common Danger and the Common Cause, . . . 439 The Pretended Prince of Wales and the French King, . . 439 Protestant England and the Liberties of Europe, . . . 440 Glorious Opportunity for the British Nation, .... 440 Public Credit, and the Parliamentary Security, .... 440 Aids asked, not Personal, but for their own Safety and Honour, 441 Very Desirable Aims, — Employment of the Poor, etc., . . 441 The Common Cause versus Parties and Divisions, . . . 441 The Protestant Religion and Present Establishment versus a Popish Prince and a French Government, . . . . 441 England holding the Balance, at the Head of Protestant Interests, 441 King William's Health, and personal Appearance, 1702, . . 442 Sorrel's Stumble, and William's Accident, 21st February, . . 442 Symptoms of Great Danger begin to appear, 1st March, . . 443 Two Characteristic Statutes passed ' by Commission,' . . 443 Fever, Great Paroxysms, Adjournment of Parliament, . . 443 William grappling nobly with his Last Enemy, .... 443 The Physicians, the Bishops, the Last Communion, . . . 444 Farewell to Friends, — Albemarle, Auverquerque, Portland, . 444 The Passing of the Great King, Sunday, 8th March 1702, . . 445 The Ribbon, the Ring, and the Lock of Mary's Hair, . . 445 Greenwich Hospital, the Grandest Monument in Britain, . . 445 History's Verdict, — ' Glorious Deliverance,' ' Glorious Deliverer,' 445 BOOK IV THE MODERN RE-ACTION Chapter i— The Last of the Stuarts Our Theme, — the Greatest Problem in British History, Accession of Queen Anne, — Address to Privy Council, 1 702, Both Houses proclaim their Loyalty to the Protestant Line, Anne's Heart ' Entirely English,'— Message to Scotland, . News of William's Death on Continent,— his Ascendency there, VOL. I. C 449449450 450 451 xxxiv SYNOPSIS PAGE Coronation; War against France and Spain; Party Spirit, . 451 Commissioners for an ' Incorporating Union ' with Scotland, . 452 New Parliament, and the Occasional Conformity Bill, 1702, . 452 Conference of Both Houses, and Rejection of the Bill by 1, . 453 De Foe's ' Shortest Way with Dissenters,' 453 Conformity Bill, revived, 1703, 1704 ; passed 1711 ; repealed 1718, 454 The Protestant Succession, and the Abjuration Bill, 1703, . 455 The Scottish Plot, and the Emissaries of France, ... 455 'Affairs of Scotland,' — Resolutions for an Entire Union, 1704, . 456 Dr. Coward's ' Grand Essay,' and ' Second Thoughts on the Soul,' 456 Social Problems, — Idlers seized as Recruits for Army and Navy, 456 The Lords' Bill ' against the Papists ' lost by the Prorogation, . 457 War with France, and ' Church in Danger' Cry, 1705, . . 457 'Growth of Popery Bill,' and Reasons for its Promotion, 1706, . 458 The Lords' 'Address against the Papists,' instead of the Last Bill, 459 Debates on the Great International ' Union ' Question, . . 459 Divergence on 'Toleration,' and the 'Succession,' 1703, . . 460 Fletcher's 'Act for the Security of the Kingdom of Scotland,' . 460 English ' Settlement of the Succession' rejected by Scotland, . 460 Limitations and Conditions of the Crown in Scotland, . . 461 Queen Anne's Letter to the Estates, and Phesdo's Motion, 1704, 461 The Scotch Act of Security passed, under Threats, . . . 462 Limitations to the Succession, and Protests against Union, 1706, 462 Commissioners from the Two Kingdoms, meeting in the Cockpit, 462 Proposed ' Articles of Union,' delivered to the Queen, . . 463 The Queen's Letter to the Estates, — Cries of Betrayal, . . 463 The ' Lauder Instructions,' — and the ' One Condition ' of Treaty, 464 Act Securing ' Protestant Religion,' and ' Presbyterian Church,' 464 Exclusiveness of ' English ' Party, and of ' General Assembly,' . 464 Scotch Parliament approves the Union by no against 69, . 465 Law, and Religion, in Scotland, to be for ever ' Inviolable,' . 465 Act of Union, debated and passed in English Parliament, . . 465 Jus Divinum of Churches : Separate Existence of Parliaments, 466 Kingdom of Great Britain : First British Parliament, 1707, . 466 A Popish Pretender, — the Chevalier de St. George, 1708, . . 467 Queen's Speeches, — Protestantism, and the Liberty of Europe, . 467 SYNOPSIS XXXV Sacheverell's Sermons, — Analysis of Impeachment, 1709, , Revulsion of Feeling in Favour of the Jacobites and Popery, 1710, The Heir Presumptive, and the Suspicions about the Queen, South Sea Trade Bill, and the General Peace, 1711, . Arabella and John Churchill, a Precious Pair, . Marlborough a Traitor both to James and William, . . Sarah Jennings, Marlborough, and the Princess Anne, Captain- Generalship, Dukedom, and Pension from Anne, . The Honours and Glories of Marlborough, 1704-1709, The Fall and Disgrace of Marlborough, — ' Swindler and Thief,' Restoration of Patronage in Scotland, a Dastardly Business, 1712. The Malt Bill, and Proposals for ' Dissolving the Union, 1713, Treaty of Utrecht, — Britain's European Victory, 1713, Ceaseless Turmoil, — the Succession in Danger, 17 14, Swift's 'Spirit of the Whigs,' and Steel's 'Englishman,' etc., 'Demand' that Heir Presumptive sit in the House of Peers, The ' Schism Bill,' indicative of a Senseless Reaction, Scheming for Popish Pretender against George of Hanover, Sudden Death of Anne, and Peaceful Accession of George, Last of the Stuart Sovereigns, and Eve of the Modern Reaction, PAGE 468470 470 471472 472 473 473474 475 476477477478478 478 479 479480 Chapter ii — The Georges and the Jacobites The Georgian Era, 1714-1830, Great Britain and Greater Britain The Heart of the Times at the Accession of George I., 1714, The Lords Justices in Ireland, and Disturbances in Britain, The Gentleman-Usher, and the Great Constitutional- Ministers, Proclamation by James, — One Virtue in the Stuart Race, . Committee of Secrecy, and the Conduct of the War, 171 5,. First Jacobite Rising, — Invasion by the Old Pretender, The 'Rebel Lords,' and the Root-Cause of the Revolt, 17 16, Septennial Parliaments, — why and how adopted ? Restoration of Triennial, defeated in 1734 by 63, King's Speech on the Popish Faction and the Pretender, 1717, South Sea Company, Public Debts, Sinking Fund, etc., . 481481481482483484 484 485485486486487 xxxyi SYNOPSIS PAGE Sir Isaac Newton, Master of the Mint, Counting the Coins, . 487 ' Bill for Strengthening of Protestant Interests,' 1718,. . . 487 The Conformity Act, and the Schism Act, swept away, 1719, . 488 The Peerage Bill, and the Pamphleteers, Steele, Addison, etc., . 488 Creation of Peers for Political Purposes, and the New Enactments, 489 Walpole's Fierce Opposition, and his Constitutional Reasons, . 489 Measure rejected, and Upper House saved from Self-destruction, 490 Number of Peers under Tudors, Stuarts, and Georges, . . 490 The South Sea Company, and its Lunacies, 1720, 491 'Bubble Companies,' proclaimed by King, branded by Justices, 491 The Crash, and Parliamentary Condemnation of ' Stock-Jobbing,' 492 South Sea Ballad, Melodies, and Moralisings, .... 492 Side-Issues, Light on History, e.g. Quakers' Bill, . . . 493 The King's Speech on the Popish Pretenders, 1722, . . . 493 Walpole's Financial Retaliation, — Tax on Papists, . . . 494 Papists and Non-Jurors treated as Public Enemies, . . . 494 ' Declaration ' by the Pretender, styling himself ' James III.,' . 495 Atterbury of Rochester, favouring the Popish Fugitive, 1723, . 495 Death of the Gentleman-Usher King, nth June 1727, . . 496 Accession of George 11., the Drill-Serjeant King, . . 496 Walpole's Supremacy, — Revolution Principles unchallenged, 496 New Themes, — ' National Debt,' ' Prisons,' ' Sugar Colonies,' etc., 497 Walpole's ' New Excise,' ' War in Europe,' ' General Peace,' . 497 Petition from Justices regarding Spirituous Liquors, in 1736, . 498 The First Motion for the Repeal of the Test Act, . . . 498 Maiden Speech of William Pitt, on the Prince's Marriage, . 499 Parliamentary Condemnation of Newswriters and Reporters, . 499 ' Button-Hole Bill,' and Whitehead's Satire on ' Manners,' . 499 Waning of Walpole's Power, War forced on, 'Jenkins' Ear,' 1739-41, 500 Committee of Inquiry on Walpole, now Earl of Orford, 1742, . 500 Liquors Bill Revived, — Overwhelming Intemperance, 1743, . 501 The Young Pretender : War betwixt France and Britain, 1744, 501 Popery and Arbitrary Power versus Protestantism and Freedom, 502 Prince Charlie's Mad Escapade : Judicial Revenges, 1745-1746, 502 King's Speech on a Popish Pretender and a Foreign Yoke, . 503 SYNOPSIS XXXV11 PAGE 'Address,' — Popish Abjured Pretender, and French Enemies; . 504 ' A Popish Prince must become a Tyrant,' 504 The Highlands, the Tartan, the Re-imbursing of Glasgow, . 504 New Calendar Bill, 1751 ; and Proposed Registration Bill, 1753, 504 Victories in North America, and Reduction of Quebec, 1759, . 505 Great Earthquake at Lisbon, Vote of ^100,000, 1755, . . 505 Death of the Drill-Serjeant King, 25th October 1760, . . 505 volume second Book IV. (continued). Chapter hi — The New Roman Catholic Campaign New Campaign, and the New Name — Roman Catholic, 1760, The Names Catholic, Papist, and Roman Catholic reviewed, George in., 'an Englishman born and bred,' The King's Speech, — Immense Popularity, . Definitive Treaty of Peace, 1763, Trial and Outlawry of John Wilkes, 1763, . The Stamp Tax and the American Colonies, 1765, Appearance of Edmund Burke and Benjamin Franklin, The Repeal of the Stamp Act, 1766, An Embargo laid on the Corn Ships, 1767, . Suspension of the New York Assembly, 1767, The King's Party — Fourteen Years of Disaster, Wilkes and Middlesex versus Parliament, . ' Junius,' and the Fourth Estate in the Realm, Charge against Massachusetts Bay and Boston, 1768, Representation from General Assembly of New York, 1769, Outrage on Tea Ships in Boston Harbour, 1773, George's Thirst for more Revenge, 1774, 99 10 xxxvm SYNOPSIS Provisional Measures of Conciliation, 1775, The King and his Party force on Civil War, Washington and the Independence of the States, 1776, George's Announcement, and Chatham's Retort, 1777, The Miserable and Suicidal Struggle, Recall of Chatham to Power, and his Last Speech, . Britain versus Old and New World for Three Years, Rescued by our Fleet from Impending Doom, . The States recognised in a Treaty of Peace, 1782, The New Influences now at Work in the World, Sir George Savile's Roman Catholic Relief Bill, 1778, First Roman Catholic Petition to Parliament analysed, The Priests, a Foreign Spiritual Militia, British Roman Catholics, — Dominated by Priests, The Debate,— First of a Series lasting over Fifty Years, Dunning on the Grievances of Roman Catholics, Arguments of Thurlow, Beauchamp, and Dundas, Limits of the Roman Catholic Demands, Debate in the Lords, — Toleration, Equality, Supremacy, Bill for Relief to Protestant Dissenters, 1779, John Wilkes on Deism and Toleration, Debate on Bill, — Newdigate, Ferguson, Moysey, Lord North's Proviso and Declaration, Wilkes a Pure Voluntary and Secularist, 1779, . Wilkes on the Civil Magistrate, Homilies, and Papal Claims A Plea for the most Unlimited Toleration, . The Roman Catholics of Scotland, and the Lord Advocate. Analysis of their Petition for Relief, 1779, . Burke fulminating against the Scotch Rioters, . Lord George Gordon's Violent Motion, 1779, Petitions against Growth of Popery, and Act of Relief, 178' The Protestant Riots in Old Palace Yard, . Proposals for Securing the Protestant Religion, . Debate Analysed, — North, Fox, Burke, etc., Five Resolutions unanimously carried, 1780, Encroachments of Popery, — the Children of Protestants, SYNOPSIS XXXIX Debate analysed, — Mawbey, Savile, Burke, etc., Qualifying Clause, — Remarkably Suggestive, The Term ' Popery ' temporarily supplanting ' Roman Catholic,: Debate in the Lords, — Roman .Catholic Statistics, Chancellor Thurlow's Argument and Amendment, Fate of the Popish Teachers' Bill, — ' Lost,' .... Relief Bill, and this Bill, — Picture of New Forces, Census of Roman Catholics, — Earl Ferrers, Bishop of Chester, etc., Statistics of Population, and of Popery, 1781, . , The Younger Pitt, and Parliamentary Reform, 1782, . PAGE 32 Chapter iv — The End of the Eighteenth Century The Birth-time of Modern England, The Methodist Revival and its Issues, .... Rise of the River of Philanthropy, — Howard, Wilberforce, etc., The New Knights of Christendom, — William Carey, etc., . Roman Catholic Relief — not an Isolated Movement, . Repeal of the hated Poyning's Act of 1719 in 1782, Independence of Ireland for Eighteen Years, — the ' Undertakers,' Presbyterians and Papists unite against ' Disabilities,' Relief Measures in 1792- 1793, and Irish Rebellion in 1798, The Union Scheme, — its Motives and Characteristics, The Penal Laws, — how dealt with in this History, Pitt as Prime Minister at Twenty-four, in 1783, . Themes of Discussion in Parliament, 1784-1789, Test and Corporation Acts, — Beaufoy, Fox, Pitt, etc., 1789, Bill to Relieve All, — 'Papists only Excepted,' 1789, . Roman Catholic Dissenters from the ' Papistical Incubus,' Bill to Commemorate the Revolution, — thrown out, . Fox's Motion for Repeal of Test and Corporation Acts, Relief Bill for Catholics, who are not Papists, 1791, . Debate, — Mitford, Fox, Burke, Dr. Horsley, etc., Fox's Plea for the Unitarians, 1792, Burke on ' Rights of Man,' and Pitt on Unitarians, . xl SYNOFSIS Scotch Roman Catholic Relief Bill of 1793) Recall of Fitzwilliam— Norfolk, Westmoreland, etc., 1795, ' Protest,'— Parliament on Roman Catholic Loyalty, . Debate in Commons, — do. — Jekyll, Fox, Pitt, etc., ' Change of System in Ireland,' — Echoes of Rebellion, 1798, Another Remedy, — 'One Empire, One Parliament,' 1799, . Proposed Union, — Sheridan, Canning, Pitt, etc., ' Two Independent Parliaments in One Empire,' — No Security, Proposal, passed in Britain, rejected in Ireland, . 'The United Kingdom,' — Pitt's Nine Resolutions, Mr. Speaker Addington's Argument and Review, Catholic Claims, and the Union, — Douglas, Sheffield, etc., Message announcing Irish Resolutions as to the Union, 1800, Monastic Institutions Bill, — Mildmay, Pitt, etc., 1800, Hobhouse on the Disabilities being Political, not Religious, Statistics of Monastic Institutions in 1800, .... Horsley's Attack on the Bill as Unconstitutional, The Union of Great Britain and Ireland, 1st January 1801, 5657 59 60 6163636666 6767 6869697172 73 74 Chapter v — The 'Emancipation' Movement Imperial Parliament, — Opening of Nineteenth Century, . . 75 Napoleonic Wars, — New World, — Principles of Government, . 75 The Three-fold Ideal, — Democracy, Aristocracy, Monarchy, . 76 Section i — Launching the Movement Pitt's Resignation, and the Roman Catholic Question, 1801, . 77 Promises to Roman Catholics, — Removal of Disabilities, . . 77 Pitt's Matured Proposals before the Cabinet and the King, . 78 George in. and his ' Conscientious Scruple,' — the Coronation Oath, 78 Pitt's Sincerity, — Charges of Swindling and Deceiving, . . 79 Napoleon's Threat of Invasion, and its Effects, 1803, ... 79 Pitt Recalled to Power, — Trafalgar Bay,— England's Example, 1805, 80 National Danger, again seized as Ireland's Opportunity, . . 80 Renewal of Roman Catholic Claims, — Dillon, Suffolk, 1804-1805, 81 Lord Grenville's Notice of Petition from Roman Catholic Ireland, 81 SYNOPSIS xli Section ii— First 'Emancipation' Debate PAGE Analysis of Petition from Roman Catholics of Ireland, 1805, . 82 Its Temporising, — Lay Catholicism, not Clerical Papalism, . 86 Grenville's Argument from Change of Circumstances, . . 87 Hawkesbury's Reply, — not Toleration but Political Power, . 87 Spencer's Retort and Blunder as to the Wishes of Roman Catholics, 89 Sidmouth, Limerick, Buckinghamshire on Dr. Troy, ... 89 The Answer of the Six Universities to Pitt's Questions, . . 90 Chancellor Eldon on Equal Rights and Equal Conditions, . 90 'Emancipation,' a Misnomer ; 'Separation,' the Real Issue, . 91 Steps in the Extinction of Disabilities, 1774-78-82-93, . . 91 Divided Allegiance, the only Barrier, — erected by themselves, . 91 Vote in the Lords, — Motion rejected by Majority of 129, . . 91 Debate in Commons, — Fox's Plea for the Petitioners, 1805, . 92 Dr. Duigenan on Popish Principles and Claims, — never renounced, 93 Grattan's First Oration, — the ' Court ' of Rome, .... 93 A Roman Catholic Establishment, and Separation from England, 94 Foster on Demands of Petitioners : Pitt on Inopportuneness, . 95 Vote in the Commons, — Motion rejected by Majority of 212, . 96 Typical of Debates for the next Five-and-Twenty Years, . . 96 Section hi — Intervening Events and Discussions Napoleon's Demon Genius for War, — Battle of Austerlitz, . . 97 Death of William Pitt at 47, 23rd January 1806, ... 98 The Grenville Ministry, — Coalition of all the Talents, . . 98 Fox, Foreign Secretary, on the Roman Catholic Claims, . . 99 Death of Charles James Fox at 57, 13th September 1 806, . . 100 Abolition of the Slave Trade carried in 1807, . . . . 101 Army and Navy Service Bill, Extending Act of, 1793, . . 100 Spencer Perceval on Dangerous Issues of the Measure, . . 101 ' Irreconcileable with his Majesty's Principles,' . . . . 101 The Portland Cabinet,— Impeachment of Ministers, . . . 102 Grant to the College of Maynooth,— Debate in 1807, ... 102 Parnell's Extracts from the Roman Catholic Prayer-Book in Ireland, 103 Maynooth again,— Newport, Wellesley, and Wilberforce, 1808,. 104 Original Charter, — its Endowment an Anomaly, ... 105 xlii SYNOPSIS Section iv— The Second 'Emancipation' Debate PAGE Petition for the Roman Catholics of Ireland, 1808, . . . 106 Grattan's Argument aflame, and Offer of Royal Veto on Bishops, 107 George Canning's Plea for Opportunism, 107 Judge Blackstone on the Exclusive Laws of the Revolution, . 108 Castlereagh on Union Promises and Perceval on Conciliation, . 108 Commons reject the Motion by a Majority of 1 53, . . . 109 Debate in the Lords,— Grenville and Sidmouth, . . . 109 Dr. Bathurst of Norwich and Lord Hawkesbury, . . . 109 Peers reject' the Motion by a Majority of 87, . . . . no Section v — The Third ' Emancipation' Debate At Death-grips with the Marshals in Spain, 1809, Two Petitions from the Roman Catholics of England, 1810, The Apostolic Vicars, and the Memorial, — three against one, Petitions from Ireland, — the Royal Veto withdrawn, . Hard and Menacing Tone of the New Petition, . Domestic Nomination of Bishops, instead of the Veto, Hippisley on the Veto, and on the Anti-Popery Laws, Debate continued, — Scott, Castlereagh, Ponsonby, etc., Perceval and Canning, — Principle versus Opportunism, Hutchinson's New Vein, — Parnell, Plumer, etc., . Commons reject the Motion by a Majority of 104, Debate in Lords, opened by Donoughmore, 6th June, Roman Catholic Theory and Practice, — the conduct of Dr. Milner. 1 Bulwarks of Constitution,' — Eldon and Donoughmore, Lords reject the Motion by a Majority of 86, nonoinmin112 112 114U5 H5116116 116 117 117 Section vi — Catholic Committee and Fourth ' Emancipation ' Debate. ' Catholic Committee : ' Circular Letter : Notices of Motion, 181 1, 118 Two Circular Letters, — the Committee and the Chief Secretary, 119 Irish Government attacked and defended, — Grenville, Perceval, etc., 120 Wellesley Pole's Story of the Transactions in Ireland, . . 121 SYNOPSIS xliii PAGE The Lords on the Letter, and the Convention Act, . . . 121 Fourth ' Emancipation ' Debate, — Grattan's Motion, . . . 121 Debate, — Hippisley, Jocelyn, Perceval, etc., . . . . 122 The Commons reject the Motion by a Majority of 63, . . 122 Debate in Upper House, — Seven Favourable Arguments, . . 122 Treaty of Limerick, the Union, and Plans of Security, . . 123 Opposing Pleas,— Bishop of Norwich and Lord Eldon, . . 123 The Lords reject the Motion by a Majority of 59, . . . 123 Section vii — The Fifth 'Emancipation' Debate At the Root of all Discussions, — the ' Catholic Question,' . . 124 'State of Ireland Debate,' — Fitzwilliam, Wellesley, etc., 1812, . 124 Sir John Nicholl's Argument in the Commons' Debate, . . 125 Canning's Opportunism, — Peel's Suggested Solution, . . . 125 Pole and Perceval on ' Committee,' and Convention Act, . . 126 Petition of Roman Catholics, and Fifth 'Emancipation' Debate, 1812, 127 Donoughmore and Liverpool on Rights and Limitations, . ' 128 Lord Byron, — characteristically Clever and Reckless Speech, . 128 The Plea of an Uncontrollable Necessity again, . . . 129 The Lords reject the Motion by a Majority of 72, . . . 129 Grattan's Motion in the Lower House, — Terms changed, . . 129 Duigenan on the Cry of ' Religious Liberty ' from Papists, . 129 Hippisley on barriers against a Foreign Power, .... 130 Charles P. Yorke on a Pope as a British Subject, . . . 130 Brougham on the Oaths as Safeguards, and Foster on Repeal, . 131 Perceval, Castlereagh, and Canning, on ' Securities,' ... 131 The Commons reject the Motion by a Majority of 85, . . 131 Section viii— The Sixth 'Emancipation' Debate Canning's Notice of Address regarding ' Securities,' 6th May 1812, 132 Assassination of Perceval by Bellingham, 1 ith May, . . . 132 Transactions by Lords and Commons thereanent, . . . 132 National Provision for the Perceval Family, .... 133 ' Emancipation ' to be an Open Question in the Cabinet, . . 134 xliv SYNOPSIS Canning opens Sixth 'Emancipation' Debate, 22d June, . Principles on which he based his Argument, Relation of this Country to Roman Catholics since 1688, . ' Is the Genius of Romanism irreconcileable to a Protestant State Amendment moved,— Mr. Montagu's Reasons therefor, Parnell's Limitations of the Influence of the Popes in Ireland, Nicholl, Grattan, and Hippisley in the Debate, . The Commons pass the Motion by a Majority of 129, Wellesley's Motion in the Lords, — same Terms as Canning's, Inconsistencies and Anomalies of the Present System, Judge Blackstone not in Favour of Unqualified Concession, The Lords reject the Motion by a Majority of only 1, ?' Section ix— The Seventh 'Emancipation' Debate Fifth Imperial Parliament, — Great Debates and Events, . Wellington versus Napoleon, and other Fascinating Themes, Seventh 'Emancipation' Debate, opened by Grattan, 1813. Resolution proposed as Basis of a Relief Bill, Plunkett on Anomalies and Inconsistencies, Yorke on the Religio Laid and the ReUgio Cleri, Mockery of the so-called ' Emancipation ' Cries, Protestation by Roman Catholics, — to be seen in British Museum, Peel, unsheathing his Weapons, and holding the Fort for 16 Years, Retort on Grattan, — Ascendency of Law, and of a Sect, . Peel's Remarkable Forecast,— Freedom of Religion on the Throne, Palmerston on Grounds of Right versus of Expediency, Gother's Vindication of ' Catholics ' from Alleged Tenets, . Canning's most Brilliant Speech, and Telling Arguments, . Exceptions and Conditions, — forecast of Peel's Measure, . The Commons pass the Motion by a Majority of 40, . Section x.— First Roman Catholic Relief Bill. First Attempt to carry a Roman Catholic Relief Bill, 1813, . 145 Title, Preamble, and Aims, — Lessons thereby suggested, . . 146 Ireland, so far as Roman Catholic, continues disaffected, . . 146 SYNOPSIS xlv PAGE Analysis of the Bill, — its Exceptions and Conditions, . . . 147 Hippisley's Select Committee, and Canning's Smalgruenus, . 148 Canning's Clauses for Indispensable ' Securities,' , . . 148 The Speaker's Amendment, — excluding still from Parliament, . 149 Sir John Nicholl on the Protestantism of our Constitution, 149 Canning thinks ' Emancipation ' the most Effectual Security, . 150 The Commons reject the Clause by a Majority of 4, . . . 150 Thereon the Promoters drop the Bill as worthless, . . . 150 Section xi — Catholic Board, and Eighth 'Emancipation' Debate The Catholic Board, — the Catholic Committee Revived, 1814, . 150 The Board's Appeal to Spain ; and the Jesuits at Castle Browne, 151 Grattan presents Petitions, but declines to discuss them, . . 151 Proclamation, dissolving the Catholic Board, 3d June, . . 152 Wellington received by the Commons with Unprecedented Honour, 152 Papal Rescript for Restoration of the Jesuits, . . . . 153 Napoleon leaves Elba, — the Wager of Battle, 181 5, . . . 153 The Eighth 'Emancipation' Debate, — Parnell, . . . . 153 The ' Full Extent of the Roman Catholic Claims,' . . . 154 Vindication of Restriction on a Foreign Power, — the Curia, . 154 Peel on the ' Gratitude ' of Roman Catholics, 154 The Commons reject the Motion by a Majority of 81, . . 155 Debate in the Lords, — the Earl of Donoughmore's Motion, . 155 At the Act of 1793, a Stand ought to be made, . . . . 155 Grenville shrinks from Parnell's Resolutions, . . . . 155 The Real Issue, — the Protestantism of the Constitution, . . 155 The Lords reject the Motion by a Majority of 26, . . . 1 56 Section xii— The Ninth 'Emancipation' Debate Cardinal York,— 1 8 16 — Exit the Last of his Race, ... 156 Debate introduced by Grattan, 15th May 1816, . . . . 157 Peel protests against Precipitate Pledges for the Future, . . 157 The Commons reject the Motion by a Majority of 31, . . 157 Hippisley gets Select Committee appointed at Last, . . 157 xlvi SYNOPSIS Parnell's Resolutions to form the Basis of a Bill, Ninth Debate opened in the Upper House, The ' Trimleston Petition,' and its Pledge of Submission, . Offer of 'Domestic Nomination' by Irish Prelates and Clergy, Donoughmore, Aberdeen, Bishop of Norwich, etc., . ' No Popery' Cry may bring the Cry of ' No Union,' . The Lords reject the Motion by a Majority of 4, Committee's Report as to ' Nomination,' and ' Inspection,' . Canning's Inference from these Stores of Evidence, . 158 158158158 159T59 160 160160 Section xiii — The Tenth 'Emancipation' Debate Grattan's Motion on the Petition from Ireland, May 1817, . . 161 ' Domestic Nomination,' a Pure Delusion and no Security, . 161 David Webb Webber's Historical Review of Papal Claims, . 161 First Period of Encroachments, — from the Norman Conquest, . 161 Second Period, — from the Reformation ; Parliaments and Priests, 162 Third Period, — from the Revolution ; the Protestant Charter, . 163 Answers from Universities : Protestation from Lay Lords, . 163 Inference from History, — ' No Conciliation by Concessions,' . 164 Cardinal Latta denounces the Regium Exequatur, . . . 164 Peel on the 'Anomalies ' still to be left after Emancipation, . 164 Grattan pleads for ' Incorporating' Popery with the State, . 164 The Commons reject the Motion by a Majority of 24, . . 164 Debate on Petitions transferred to the Upper House, . . 164 Donoughmore, Liverpool, Eldon, and Bishop of Norwich's Speeches, 165 The Lords reject the Motion by a Majority of 52, . . . . 165 Proposal to Repeal certain Portions of the Exclusive Acts, 1618, 165 Section xiv— Eleventh 'Emancipation' Debate, and Second Relief Bill Grattan's Magnificent Argumentum adhominem, 18 19, . . 166 Impassioned Peroration, — ' The Genius of this Country,' . . 167 John Wilson Croker on the 'Act of Indemnity,' .... 168 The Commons reject the Motion by a Majority of 2, . . . 168 SYNOPSIS xlvii Donoughmore's Proposal in the Upper House, . Eldon's Interpretation of the Dictum of Locke, . ' Equal Privileges demanded upon Unequal Conditions,' . Wellington on the Influence of Pope and Priest on the People, The Lords reject the Motion by a Majority of 41, Second Roman Catholic Relief Bill, — the ' Declaratory Oaths,' Earl Grey, Bishop of Norwich, and Lord Eldon's Speeches, The Bill rejected by a Majority of 59, George ill. passes away from his Death-in-Life, 1820, The Four Georges, — every Type of Sovereign except the Highest 169169169169 169 169 170 170 170171 Section xv — The Twelfth 'Emancipation' Debate Parnell gives Notice of Grattan's Motion, for nth May 1820, . 172 ' Bill of Pains and Penalties ' against Queen Caroline, . . 172 Hints in Records explained by this Divorce Case, . . . 173 Lord Nugent speaks ' on Behalf of 8000 British Catholics,' . 173 ' Text Authorities,' — Blackstone, Hoadley, and Paley, . . 174 Grattan's Death, 4th June 1820, — Character and Eloquence, . 175 Plunkett introduces Twelfth 'Emancipation' Debate, 1821, . 175 Argument — ' Grounds of Religion, of Constitution, of Policy,' . 175 Peel's Reply, — Blackstone on Penal, not Exclusive Laws, . . 177 Pre-Reformation Times ; Elizabeth's Days ; and the Revolution, 177 Five Popish Dangers, and the Securities against them, . . 177 Mackintosh condemns the Inference of Perpetual Exclusion, . 178 Castlereagh pleads for a State Provision for the Priests, . . 178 The Commons pass the Motion by a Majority of 6, . . . 178 Section xvi— Third Roman Catholic Relief Bill Plunkett's Six Resolutions,— the Basis of a Bill, 1821, . . 178 Dr. Milner's ' Bigotry ' — really the Spirit of Papacy, ... 179 The Bill, really two,— (1) Disabilities ; (2) Correspondence, . 180 The Issues of the Army Act of 1817,— leave no Alternative. . 180 xlviii SYNOPSIS Peel's Retort as to Prince of Orange, and Resolute Opposition, Canning's ' Expediency ' Idea, and Humorous Argument, . The Second Reading carried by a Majority of 1 1, All Amendments in Committee practically vain, Authorities quoted,— Selden, Locke, and Blackstone, . Sir Wm. Scott concurs with Dr. Milner as to the Oath, ' Pope ' in a Bill, for First Time, instead of ' Bishop of Rome,' The Third Reading carried by a Majority of 19, Brought up to the Lords, and read a First Time, Donoughmore, and Liverpool, — a Split in the Camp, . Roman Catholic Bishops and Clergy against the Bill, Roman Catholic Peers of England in Favour of it, Mansfield's ' Jar and Giant ; ' Redesdale's ' only Security,' Eldon on Securities, and Locke ' in Ordine ad Spiritualia,' Retort as to the Roman Catholics having ' changed,' . 'Canonical Obedience inconsistent with Civil Allegiance,' . Hardwicke on ' Solid Security' of Protestant Succession, . The Lords reject the Bill by a Majority of 39, . Section xvii — Fourth Roman Catholic Relief Bill Canning introduces what is known as the ' Peers' Bill,' 1822, Origin of the Penal Enactments, — Popish Plot, etc., . Exclusion of Peers, — Coronation Ceremonial, etc., No Reasons for treating Peers differently from Commoners, Peers in the House before 1678, or excluded ? Exclusion of Peers, not accounted for by the Plot alone, Coronation Ceremonial, — Peel's Retort on Canning, . Bill passed almost nem. con. by the Commons, . Lethbridge, — ' Thanks God for the House of Lords ! ' Portland commends Peers' Bill to the Lords, Burke on 'the Protestantism of the Protestant Religion,' Repealing Restrictions is Restoring Papal Supremacy, Catholic Peers no Right to a 'Better Footing than the King,' The Lords reject the Bill by a Majority of 42, . SYNOPSIS xlix Section xviii— Thirteenth ' Emancipation ' Debate, and Fifth and Sixth Relief Bills Petition against Jesuits, — the Charge of Hume, 1823 Career of the Order, — Dates of their Expulsion, Wilmot and Hobhouse ridicule all Fear of Jesuits, Burdett denounces the Debates as an ' Annual Farce, Canning's Reply, and Retort on Burdett's Secession, Peel's Fiery Protest as to Compromise of Opinions, Brougham's Attack on Canning for ' Truckling,' . The ' Lie Direct,'— a Fierce Altercation in the House Plunkett opens Thirteenth ' Emancipation ' Debate, All Further Speakers shouted down, — ' Scenes,' . House adjourned by a Majority of 202, Fifth Roman Catholic Relief Bill, — Lord Nugent's, Peel concedes the English Roman Catholic Franchise, Refusal to be committed to any 'Ulterior Measures,' . New Title, — ' English Roman Catholic Elective Franchise Bill, Debate in Upper House, — Lansdowne, Eldon, Liverpool, Rejected in the Lords by a Majority of 7, . Roman Catholic Bishops on Religious Education in 1824, Sixth Roman Catholic Relief Bill, in the Upper House, Lansdowne on Equal Eligibility to all Civil Privileges, Colchester and Ryder on the Essential Principles of Popery, Eligibility of the Subject, and Supremacy of the Sovereign, The Lords reject all Piecemeal Legislation on this Question, 1 Catholic Association ' sitting as an Irish Parliament, Proposal to establish the Roman Catholic Religion in Ireland, PAGE 192192193193194194 194195I96196197197197I98I98I98 198199199 200 2O0200200201 201 Section xix — ' Catholic Association,' and Fourteenth ' Emancipation ' Debate. Sixth Session of Seventh Parliament, vital to our History, 1825, 202 ' Unlawful Societies Bill,' — Great Debate for Five Days, . . 202 Burdett's Speech, — Quotations from Burns and Milton, . . 203 Canning's Indictment of the Catholic Association, . . 203 VOL. I. d 1 SYNOPSIS Brougham's Vindication of Agitation and Intimidation, Bill carried by vast Majorities, — the Commons roused, Great Petition for the ' Equalising of Civil Rights,' . Cuckoo Cry about 'Liberty' and our 'Glorious Constitution,' Burdett introduces the Fourteenth ' Emancipation ' Debate, ' Treaty of Limerick,' and the ' Power of the Pope,' . Change of Tone as to the Protestant Establishment, Canning's Forecasts, — proved to be Mere Illusions, Plunkett's Assurances, — and Proposal to endow the Priests, Peel's Summation of the Argument, — a Great Speech, Limitation of Concessions in the ' Treaty of Limerick,' Reply to Reasoning based on ' Natural Rights of Man,' Discussion of ' Question of Policy,' — Safety and Tranquillity, Peel's Position now and afterwards,— a Puzzle in Ethics, Brougham's Slashing Rejoinder, and Ridicule, . The Commons pass the Motion by a Majority of 13, PAGE 204 204 204205 205205 206206 207207207 207 208 208209 209 Section xx— The Seventh Roman Catholic Relief Bill Title of Bill, and Full Analysis of Contents, 1825, . . . 209 Last Attempt at settling the Question on the Old Lines, . 210 Charles Brownlow's Recantation, — a Typical Example, . 211 Reply by William Peel, — ' No Change ;' a 'Premium on Faction,' 211 Canning called for, — his most Brilliant Speech, . . 211 The Predominance of all Protestant Interests, . .211 Pope the Poet, — declaring himself ' not a Papist but a Catholic,' 212 Mocking at and minimising the Issues of Concession, . . 212 Exclusion for ever, or on Temporary Grounds, only, . . . 212 The Good Old Oath, and the Fear of Pramunire, . . . 212 The Raising of the Franchise, and the Endowment of the Priests, 213 Peel on Recent Conversions, and Alleged Causes of the Same, . 213 Constitution altered, and no Security for Church or Crown, . 214 The Principles of Human Nature, and Certain Disabilities, . 214 Refusal to endow the Priests because of their Civil Principles, 214 Dr. Doyle's ' Scale of Indulgences' treated scornfully as Immoral, 215 SYNOPSIS PAGE Peel's Ultimatum,— Throne, Parliament, Church, and Bench, . 215 A Mind fascinated by Contradictories,— Germs of Change, . 215 The Commons pass the Second Reading by a Majority of 27, 215 H.R.H. the Duke of York on the King and the Coronation Oath, 216 Lord F. L. Gower's Proposal to endow the Roman Catholic Clergy, 216 Foster's Confusion, — Brains hopelessly Muddled, . .217 Hume's Proposal to extend it to 'all Dissenting Ministers,' . 217 'Emancipation' pledged to allay 'All Disturbances,' . . 217 Endowment Motion carried by a Majority of 41, . . 218 ' Protest of the Speaker' against Sir Francis Burdett's Bill, . 218 Sir Robert H. Inglis, — an Outline of his Great Argument, . . 219 The Index of 1819 demonstrates that Rome is Unchanged, . 219 Intolerance of the late Pope,— Ex-Cathedra Utterances, . . 220 Dr. Doyle in the Witness Box, — his Evidence exposed, . . 220 ' Ulterior Objects,' — and the Continuance of Dissatisfaction, . 221 Our Constitution, — a System of Securities and Exclusions, 221 Highest Level of Reasoning on the Catholic Question, . . 221 Horace Twiss on Protestant Principles and Exclusive Laws, 222 The Exclusive Laws coeval with the Reformation, . . . 222 Peel's Alternative Proposal, — dragging the Anchors, . . . 223 The Commons pass the Relief Bill by a Majority of 21, . . 223 Burdett's Bill carried up by a Deputation to the Lords, . . 223 Colchester on the Suppression of the Catholic Association, . 224 Anglesey, disgusted at the Roman Catholics, ' takes his Stand,' 224 Liverpool on Equal Rights and Equal Conditions for all, . . 224 The Lords reject the Bill by a Majority of 48, .... 225 General Petition from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, 1826, . 225 The Petitioners describe their Present Condition and their Claims, 226 Section xxi— Roman Catholic Prelates' Manifesto, and the Fifteenth 'Emancipation' Debate Omission of Ireland from the King's Speech, November 1826, . 227 The ' Catholic Association,' and Priests at the General Election, 227 New Roman Catholic Petition ; Freedom of Conscience Cry, 1827, 227 Forecasts of Concord, falsified by ' Ulterior Objects,' . . . 228 Hi SYNOPSIS PAGE Manifesto of Prelates, delivered by Villiers Stuart, . . 228 Categorical Denial by Hierarchy of Alleged Tenets of Rome, . 229 Five Tenets,— 'Sin,' 'Indulgences,' 'Oaths,' 'Allegiance,' 'Heretics,' 229 Loopholes in every Answer,— Drawn for catching Votes, . . 230 Viscount Lorton's Petition for ' Emancipation of Protestants,' . 231 Abolition of the Double Land Tax, imposed on Papists, . . 231 Burdett introduces Fifteenth ' Emancipation ' Debate, . . 231 Unfortunate Prophecies, and Unhistorical Comparisons, . 231 Treaty of Limerick, Elective Franchise, and Union of Hearts, . 232 Debate continued, — Dawson, Spring Rice, Villiers Stuart, . . 232 Recrudescence of Clerical Papalism, — to be counted on, . . 233 Bacon contrasts Effect of Atheism and of Superstition, . . 233 Charles Brownlow's Message of Political Despair, . . 234 Debate Resumed — Newport, Eliot, Cust, and Copley, . . 234 Constellation of Genius on the Constitutional Side also, . . 234 Plunkett's Attack on Sir John Copley's Terms of Emancipation, 234 The Protestant Church the Bond betwixt England and Ireland, 235 Roman Catholic Quebec and the Oath of Supremacy, . 235 Peace in Ireland dependent upon the Roman Catholic Priesthood, 236 Peel's Last Speech but one against these Papal Claims, . 236 No Ground Discoverable in the Terms of the Treaty of Limerick, 237 Our Quarrel not with Religious Tenets, but a Political System, . 237 Peel on Present Benefits versus Future Apprehensions, . 238 Judges of ' Patriotism,' and Guardians of 'Tranquillity ' in Ireland, 238 Catholic Prelates' 'Declaration,' and the ' Ten Commandments,' 239 Peel's Transparent Sincerity, yet Strange Note of Opportunism, 240 Brougham on Treaty of Limerick and ' Bloody Mary ' Arguments, 240 The Only Alternative,— a Strong Incitement to Rebellion, . 241 Canning on Securities, Papal Bulls, and Dangers of Refusal, . 242 The Commons Reject the Motion by a Majority of 4, . . 242 Section xxii — Transformation Scenes : Canning and Wellington Swinging of Pendulum — Petitions, Questions, Grievances, . 243 Canning called to be Prime Minister, April 1827, . . . 244 SYNOPSIS liii PAGE Political Career since 1793, and Popular Achievements, . . 244 Peel's Resignation, and the Dignity of his Explanation of Motives, 245 Charge of ' Caballing ; ' and Significance of the Denials, . . 246 New Administration, a Motley Company ; Petitions against, . 247 Canning's Leadership in ' Emancipation,' not a Moral Paradox, 247 Canning dies, and is laid in Westminster Abbey, 8th August, . 247 Another Transformation, — Wellington and Peel in Office, 1828, 248 Brougham attacks Wellington, — ' The Schoolmaster is Abroad,' 248 Wellington and Peel's Policy as to the Roman Catholic Question, 249 The Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, .... 250 Section xxiii — Sixteenth 'Emancipation' Debate Mutterings of Storm, — Burdett, Brougham, Parnell, May 1828,. 250 Last Great Debate before Surrender of Peel and Wellington, . 251 Burdett on Treaty of Limerick, and Irish Elective Franchise, . 251 Pledges at the Union, — the Church of the Minority, . . . 252 Clever Badinage of the Government, and Subtle Flattery, . . 252 Divided Allegiance of Roman Catholics laughed at, . . . 253 The Pope's Influence in Ireland declared to be Nil ! . . . 253 ' No People in the World more Easily Satisfied,' . . . 254 Securities Compared to * Amulets ' and ' Old Shoes,' . . . 254 Tindal on the ' Treaties,' and the Oath for ' Offices ' and ' Seats,' 254 Argument from Natural Right, how Conditioned and Why ? . 254 Protestant Church ' Inviolable ; ' Papal Interference 'Abolished,' 255 Roman Catholic Tenets still held Unqualified, and still Dangerous, 255 The Spirit of Papalism only Sleeping, not Extinguished, . . 256 Young Spencer Perceval and Mr. Fitzgerald's Antics, . . 256 Great Speech of Sir R. H. Inglis, the Rival of Peel, ... 256 Treaty of Limerick Argument, finally disposed of, 256 Disproof of any Pledge from Pitt at the Union, . . . . 257 Coronation Oath Argument, — there is Something in it, . . 258 Argument on the General Grounds of Political Expediency, . 258 Conciliation tried for last Forty Years,— What Results ? . . 258 Language of the Roman Catholic Petitioners then and now, . 258 Papal Demands in Parliament,— Rising Scale since 1782, . . 259 liv SYNOPSIS PAGE The 'Foreign' Parliament of Britain ; Great Names ; other Powers, 259 Inevitable Issues,— Protestant Ascendency, or Papal, . . 260 Sir J. Mackintosh, and his Feeble and Fallacious Argument, . 261 Peel's Last Great Speech against Concession, . ¦ 261 Treaty of Limerick— and Final Good-bye to the Subject, . . 262 Removal of Blot of Bad Faith regarding the Union, . 262 Roman Catholic D issenters differentiated from all other Dissenters, 263 Protestant Ascendency vindicated, and Flabby Charity denounced, 263 State of Ireland, — and Manifest Swaying of Peel's Mind, . . 264 Conduct of Irish Roman Catholics, and of the Priesthood, . . 264 Final Declaration, — Lofty yet evenly weighted, . . . 264 Indications of Drift in Peel's Mind and in Public Policy, . . 265 Huskisson's Argument, — a Glaring Non Sequitur, . . . 265 Foolish Ideas as to Influence of Free Press on Popery, . . 266 Brougham's 'Three Courses,' and Flourish of Tin Trumpets, . 266 The Commons pass the Motion by a Majority of 6, . . . 267 Burdett's Resolution accepted, — ' to consider the State of the Laws,' 267 Message from Commons, and Conference with Lords, . . 267 Lansdowne on ' Civil Liberty' in Popish Countries, . . . 268 State of Ireland, — Effects of Conciliation predicted, . . . 269 Darnley on ' Liking,' and Guildford on ' Trust,' . . . 269 What may be feared, — Religious Aversion to Protestantism, 270 Renunciation of the See of Rome, — Clarendon, Lloyd, etc., . 270 Proofs that Doctrines of Popery are Unchanged, . . . 271 Divided Allegiance proved by Proposal to regulate it from Rome, 271 Lyndhurst's Last Speech against Concession, .... 272 The Protestant Church, ' the Cement of the Union,' . . . 273 Demagogues are but the Spawn of Irish Wrongs, . . . 273 Eldon on Disabilities, — the Duke of Norfolk, the King, . . 274 Wellesley on Dangerous Laws, and New Securities, . . . 274 Wellington's Last Speech against Concession, .... 274 Popery as a System of Political Conduct in Ireland, . . . 275 Securities, and a Concordat with See of Rome, .... 275 The Lords reject the Motion by a Majority of 44, . . . 276 Peel's Sentiments unaltered, 12th June 1828, .... 276 Brougham glories in Expediency versus Principle, . 276 SYNOPSIS lv Chapter vi— The Roman Catholic Relief Bill PAGE Climax of our History— the Relief Bill of 1829, . . 278 Section i — Opening Skirmish : King's Speech. King's Speech, — Seven Paragraphs as to Ireland, 5th February, 278 Salisbury on Catholic Association, Priesthood, and Securities, . 280 Wicklow on the Bill, and the Association dissolving itself, . 281 Wellington's Announcement of Proposed Measures, . 281 Winchilsea, Eldon, Farnham, Anglesey, and Redesdale, . 281 Wellington on Settlement of Question, and Irish Tranquillity, . 283 Clive and Corry Moving the Address in the Commons, . 283 Corry on the ' Brink of Civil War ' Argument, . 284 Bankes on the Coming Overthrow of the Irish Establishment, . 284 Inglis on the Ministry yielding to Intimidation, . . . 285 Fitzgerald and Brownlow praise the Duke's Policy, . . . 285 Peel vindicates the Government and himself, .... 285 Scornful Denial of any Change of Principles, .... 286 Peel's Whole Philosophy,— Fear of Civil War, . . 286 Review of Five-and-Twenty Years, — and Measures to be Submitted, 287 The Issues, — Peel sees one Great Advantage of the Bill, . . 287 Charge of Cowardice and Treatment of Personal Matters, . 288 Brougham's Challenge as to Forming an Anti-Catholic Cabinet, 289 Grattan and Burdett on ' Union of Hearts,' — falsified, . . 289 Countless Petitions, and Continued Reference to Securities, . 29a Leslie Foster, Huskisson, and Newport — Continued Debate, . 291 Peel's Dignified Reply, and Address agreed to, . . . . 291 Section ii — Suppression Bill, and Personal Matters Peel's Speech in Introducing the Bill, 10th February 1829, . 292 The Catholic Association and Exclusive Dealing, . . 292 O'Connell on the Catholic Association, and the Hated Union, 293 Palmerston on the Golden and the Iron Bridges, . . 293 Wellington scouts and resents the Term ' Emancipation,' . 293 lvi SYNOPSIS Peel rages against Knatchbull's Criticism, . Peel's Main Contention, a Terrible Mistake, Bill pushed through all Stages and passed, . Wellington very Sensitive to Charge of Intimidation, Peel's Resignation of Oxford, and Election for Westbury, Newcastle intimates a Call of the House of Peers, PAGE 294 295 295 296 296297 Section hi— Preliminary Resolution,— Great Debate Resolution authorising the Bill, 5 th March 1829, Epoch-making Speech analysed ; its Exordium, Less Danger now in Concession than in Resistance, . Yielding to a Moral Necessity, for Protestant Interests, First Contention, — Divided Cabinets and Distracted Councils, Dreadful State of Ireland, and Effect of these Divisions, . Neutral Governments and Open Questions must be abandoned Second Contention, — a Cabinet of Exclusion Impossible, . Catholic Association, Elective Franchise, and Dissolution, The Census of 1821, — Government by Army and Police, . The Franchises, and the Great Protestant Rotunda Meeting, The one only Alternative — Adjustment of Claims, Relief Measures, founded upon Two Main Principles, Civil and Political Privileges, and the New Oath, Corporate Offices and Administration of Justice, Their Eligibility, a Security for Protestant Establishments, Exceptions under the Bill, — certain Specified Offices, The Ten-Pound Voter to supplant the Forty-Shilling Freeholder, Ecclesiastical Securities, — the See of Rome ignored, . Insignia of Office, and Names and Titles of Bishops, . Provisions against Jesuits and other Monastic Orders, Peel's Main Aim,— the Security of the Protestant Interests, Possibility of Evil Issues, — Peel's Peroration, . Jury of Posterity on the Hallucinations of Statesmen, Bankes on Peel's Speeches, and the Catholic Association, Dissolution of Parliament, and Dissolution of the Union, . Sir R. H. Inglis on Peel's Three Grounds of Defence, 297298 298299299300301 301 301 3023°3 3°33°4 304 305 3053°5 306 306 3°7 307 3°7 308308309 310 - 310 SYNOPSIS Ivii State of Ireland, not caused by Laws, nor cured by Repeal, Divided Cabinets, — but why should Peel be a Traitor to himself Divided Parliaments, — but less so than in 1 8 13, Dread of Civil War, — answered and discounted, Censure for declining a Referendum to the People, Gratitude to Roman Catholics, Fatal Issues of Concession, Constitution of 1829, — Forecasts of Peel and of Inglis, Sir G. Murray's Venture, — the Poison of Popery, Debate resumed ; O'Connell duly elected ; Glasgow Petition, Grant on the Association, and Villiers Stuart on Franchise Bill, Brougham on his Rhetorical Horse, ' Discord no more,' . The ' Exceptions ' constitute Admission of Ulterior Designs, Dobson's Three Warnings, — the Bill no Surprise, Another Prediction falsified, — ' stilling the Voice of Faction,' Miserable Alternative, — Civil War or Surrender to Jesuits, Sibthorpe's Protest, — the Measure being forced on the Country Huskisson's Safeguards and Securities, — belied by History, Batley, Jonathan Peel, and the Price for Tranquillity, Burdett's Denial that Ireland is Priest-ridden, . Colossal Simplicity as to Clerical Plans and Ideas, . Duncombe on Indignation at Speech from the Throne, George Moore shows Future Use of Peel's Concessions, Viscount Corry hoodwinked, and now disillusionised, Cresset Pelham's Amendment drowned in Cries, Peel's Three Securities, and the Verdict of History thereon, Argument of Physical Force, — the Threat of Civil War, . What if the same Threat be forced by-and-bye from Protestants ? The Commons pass the Resolution by a Majority of 188, . Terms of Motion in Committee of the whole House, . Petitions, — Earl Grey, Sheriffs of London, and Sir R. H. Inglis, Relief Bill introduced, also Irish Franchise Bill, PAGE 3H3H3H 312 3123123133H 314315 315 3!6316 317 317 3'73i8 3i8 3'9 319319 320 320321 321 322 322323 323 323 324 Section iv— Relief Bill Analysed and Introduced Title,—' Relief,' not Emancipation ; ' Roman Catholic,' not Catholic, 324 Preamble, and Repeal of certain Enactments and Disabilities, , 324 lviii SYNOPSIS PAGE Eligibility to Parliament, and Terms of Catholic Oath, , . 325 Civil and Military Offices, and Places of Trust and Profit, . 326 The 'Exceptions,' — Regency, Lieutenancy, two Chancellorships, and any Office of Ecclesiastical Privilege or Patronage, . 326 Titles and Dignities of Clergy ; Insignia, Robes, and Ceremonies, 326 Three Enactments to gradually extinguish Jesuits, etc., . . 327 Five-sixths of all these Provisoes already Dead and Gone, . 328 The Two Bills read pro forma, 10th March 1829, . . 328 A Week of Petitions and of Side-Debates, . . . 329 ' Independent Yeomanry ; ' ' Placards : ' ' Association ' dissolved, 329 Return of Roman Catholics, taking the Oaths of 1791 and 1793, 330 Plunkett's Amendment, and Wellington's Act of Indemnity, 331 Peachy's Taunton. Placards, and Wells with his Starling, . . 332 Petitions : 147,000 Irish Protestants ; Linlithgow Presbytery, 332 Russell on Edinburgh Petition, and on Dr. Chalmers, 333 Section v — Second Reading Debate in the Commons Moved for by Peel on 17th March 1829, . . . 333 Knatchbull's Argumentum ad hominem, Three Heads, . 334 Ascendency there must be, and Grievances still, . . 334 Michael T. Sadler of Newark's Brilliant Speech, • • • 335 The Mischief regarding Ireland, — Absenteeism 335 Challenge answered, — 'what to do with Ireland,' . . . 335 All Rights created by the Constitution are Conditional, . . 336 Freedom of Conscience to all ; but none to the King, . . 337 Contradictories accumulate to support this Bill, . . . 337 Time and Manner of Concession, and Use of Extorted Rights, . 33S The Divided Cabinets, and the Simultaneous Conversions, . 33S The Wheeling Phalanx, and the Stabbing of the Constitution, . 339 Omnipotence of Parliament, and Peroration on 'my Oath,' . 339 Extraordinary Commotion, and Adjournment of the Debate, . 34© Henry Bankes on Peel's Words in Reply to Canning, . . 340 Horton for Prohibiting Catholics voting on Church Interests, 341 Sir Henry Parnell misled by the Priests, ..... 342 Tullamore on Deceptive Practices, and Burleigh's Warning, . 342. SYNOPSIS lix PAGE Trant on Ulterior Demands, and our Resistance to them, . . 343 Palmerston on State of Ireland, — his Errors as to Cause, . 343 Wetherell's Personal Explanations, and Criticism of Bill, .. 344 Peel's Reply, — that Concession was inevitable, and was safe, . 344 Failure to realise Full Outcome of his own Logic, . . 345 An Appeal to the Country, — Peel's Undercurrent Contempt, . 345 The Spectre of Civil War, and the Ominous Calm in Ireland, . 346 Peel's Closing Words, — a certain Pathetic Dignity, . 346 The Commons pass the Second Reading by a Majority of 180, 346 Section vi— The Committee-Stage of the Bill Petitions, Side-Debates, and Freeholders' Bill, .... 347 Peel on dissolving the Bond betwixt Laity and Clergy, . 347 ' Admit Roman Catholics, and all Securities are Unavailing,' . 347 Vindication of the Penalties on Monastic Orders, . . . 348 Mackintosh on Scott and Davy, Moncreiff and Chalmers, . 348 What if we deal not with a Religion but a Conspiracy ? . . 350 Trant on Sir James Mackintosh's ' New Democratists,' . : 350 Chalmers's Speech again commented on in the Lords, . . 350 Weighing as well as numbering Names on Petitions, . 351 Rose on the Popish Faction holding the Balance in Parliament, 352 Conversion of Colonel Trench, — a Typical Example of Hundreds, 352 Peel and Trant on the Clauses from the Oath of 1791, . 353 Wetherell's Attack on this 'Jacobinical Bill,' ... 353 Lewis on the Jesuits, ' nothing to fear,' — Criminal Simplicity, 354 Monastic Endowments still left Liable to Forfeiture, . . 354 Licence to Jesuit Scholars for a Period of Six Months, . 355 Hume's Defence of the Jesuits, and Trant's Protest, . . . 355 Committee-Stage passed through with Majority of 127, . . 355 Section vii — Third Reading Debate in the Commons Analysis very scrappy, to avoid mere Repetitions, 356 Chandos sees no Reason for altering his Opinions, . 356 Moore quotes Chatham on the Act of Supremacy, . . 356 Ix SYNOPSIS Religion and Politics of Romanism Indistinguishable, Romanism making 'Bad Subjects,'— Historical Instances, Bankes on a Jesuit in the State, — a stroke at Peel, Tindal and Wetherell as to the Oaths of their Office, Eldon and Redesdale, and what they granted in 1791 and I793; Nullity of Precautions and Provisoes, — Danger, — no Security, The Sense of the People versus Professors and Literati, Allybone, Judge and Jesuit, Sample of the Coming Judges, Great Names and Authorities, a Challenge of History, Peel's Sneer of Satisfaction at Wetherell's 'Worst,' Vindication of the Bill, and of his Tactics as a Politician, . Our First Great Opportunist, and his Motto from Cicero, . Inglis on the Four Arguments for the Measure, . The Unchangeable Character of the Church of Rome, Argument that Concession weakens Hostility ridiculed, Concession to be proved ' the Least of Two Evils,' Answer to Argument from Divided Cabinets and Parliaments, Proofs that these Laws have not caused the State of Ireland, Privilege surrendered to Intimidation, as from Peel, . Agitation by Rule of Three, —a Premium offered now, Abrogation of the Legislature's Protest against Popery, Sadler's Objections still levelled against the Principle, The Kind of ' War ' recommended as a ' Remedy ' for Ireland, The ' Emancipation ' he would ask, and by what Means secured Popery characterised — its Tenets, and their Effects on Man, Denunciation of Expediency divorced from Principle, Not ' the Least of Evils,' but Evil in Preference to Good, . The Thermopylae of Protestantism, the Recreant Moelian, Sydney Yorke's Egregious Irish Toast, The Commons pass the Bill by a Majority of 178, PAGE 356 356357358 358 358359 360360 361361 361362362 363 3633633^4364365365366 366367 368 36936937o37o 370 Section viii— Second Reading Debate in the Lords Wellington's Motion,— Debate on the ' Breathless Haste,' . 371 Dr. Doyle's Petition against the Jesuit Extinction Clauses, . 372 Clifden on the Dark Ages, the Press, and the Jesuits, . . 372 SYNOPSIS lxi PAGE Jesuit Intellect marches too, with the Press its Tool, . . . 373 Second Reading, — Great Stir amongst Peers, 2d April, 1829, . 373 Gist of Wellington's Speech, — Duty absolutely Incumbent, . 374 State of Ireland, — Exclusive Dealing proposed there, . . 374 All Wellington's Philosophy,— the Risk of Civil War, . . 375 Fallacious Sentiment about ' any Sacrifice whatever,' . . 375 Exclusion of Roman Catholics ' not a Permanent Enactment, . 375 Every Restriction or Exception mocked at as an Injustice, . 376 Concordats imply that the Pope has Power to concede, . . 376 On Monastic Orders, Wellington outwitted by Loyola, . . 376 Concord in Ireland, as witness Effects of Concession elsewhere, 377 Main Argument, — Roman Catholics have no ' Separate Interest, 377 His Parting Shot, — Note of Battle, if he be disappointed, . . 377 Canterbury on the Injury done to the State by this Bill, . 378 Armagh on Ulterior Objects : the Priest-Commissioned M.P.s, 378 Salisbury hookwinked, but himself deceiving others, . . . 378 Clifden, Atholl, and Eldon on Early Adjournments, . . . 379 Durham on the Papal Authority calling itself Spiritual, . . 379 Futility of Sole Remaining Security, — a Protestant King, . . 380 Duke of Sussex predicts Peace, Unity, and Concord, . . 380 Lyndhurst has no Apprehension of Romish Influences, . . 3S1 Flourish about the Benefits of the Bill to Protestant Institutions, 381 Falmouth characterises the Conversion of the Chancellor, . 381 Maynooth Priests less Loyal than those educated Abroad, . 382 Church of Scotland built upon ' the Rock of Poverty,' . 382 Rather Civil War than Remote and Greater Dangers, . . 382 Anglesey treats Question Politically, Religiously, Militarily, . 382 Parliamentary Security, — Perpetual Law against Perpetual Plot, 384 Romanism Unchanged, e.g. as to Oaths Detrimental to Church, 384 Combinations against Liberty must be deprived of Influence, . 384 Westmoreland follows the Government blindfold, . . 385 Romanists not the Masters of their own Consciences, . . 385 Grey on the 'Common Interest,' — his Personal Triumph, . . 385 Eldon on the ' Surprise ; ' and Relaxation of Penal Laws, . . 386- The People's Opinion known to him,— a Touch of Scorn, . . 386 Saxon Ancestors, and Magna Charta, on Liberty and Supremacy, 387- Ixii SYNOPSIS Plunkett on the Necessity of Concession, for Sake of Union, . 387 State of Ireland,— its Cause and the one Possible Remedy, . 388 Plunkett's Remedy proved to be Utterly Futile in Fact, . . 388 Overthrow of Irish Establishment,— Plunkett's Fatuity thereanent, 389 Solemn yet Ridiculous Assurance as to Roman Catholics, . 389 Wellington on ' Tranquillity,' and the Safety of the Irish Church, 390 ' Dishing the Priests '—by the Disfranchisement Bill, 390 Wellington on his Inconsistency, Secrecy, and not ' Dissolving,' 390 The Lords pass the Second Reading by a Majority of 105, . , 391 Section ix — Committee-Stage and Third Reading in the Lords Freeholders' Bill, mocked at by Eldon as ' Hush Money,' 391 Wellington's Reasons for Concession, — Safety and Honour of the State, . . 39 1 Kenyon's Attack on Government for not maintaining the Laws, 392 ' Is the Roman Catholic Religion justly styled " Idolatrous " ? ' 392 Amendment to exclude Peers who are in Holy Orders, . . 392 Representative Peers in Scotland, — State of Opinion there, . 393 Principal Offices in the Cabinet, — Holland's Explanation, . . 393 Ecclesiastical Titles' Clauses, — ' No Security, but a Satisfaction,' 393 Clauses against Jesuits also prefunctorily treated, . . . 393 Eldon on the Liverpool Petition, and ' all the Talents,' . . 394 Third Reading Debate in the Lords, 10th April 1829, . . 394 Eldon, with ' Gloves Off,' delivers his Final Testimony, . 395 His Contrast betwixt Pitt's Proposals, and the Present Bill, . 395 'The Most Dangerous Bill ever submitted to Parliament,' . . 396 Reasons for Great Change within One Year, mocked at, . . 396 Priests and their Jurisdiction, — Test as to Marriage Laws, . 396 Foreign Jurisdiction in England, and Lord Coke on Supremacy, 397 'Is Philip dead?' — Roman Catholic Association will revive ! . 397 'Roman Catholic King, and Roman Catholic Legislature' (Doyle), 398 'A Protestant Kingdom,' — the Revolution Compact, . Eldon's Forecast — ' Church of Ireland cannot Survive,' The Old Chancellor's Solemn Asseveration, — a ' Traitor,' 398 399399 SYNOPSIS lxiii PAGE Newcastle sees no Expediency, — Lichfield, Vain Illusions, 399 Redesdale's Forecast, verified under each of Three Heads, 400 ' The Constitution is now to be satisfied ! ' — Lansdowne's Hopes, 400 Bishop of Norwich, Heber, and Dr. Chalmers, as Guides, . 401 Predictions, — Security, and Union of Hearts, — befooled again, 401 Wellington's Vindication, — Charge of Secrecy and Surprise, . 401 ' Is there any Danger of a Popish Sovereign or Successor now ? ' 402 ' No Possible Danger to the Establishment in Ireland,' . . 403 Wellington's Forecasts, — Replies from Roman Catholic Ireland, 403 Threat of Coercion, counterchecked by Example of Concession, 403 The Duke's Hopes, — and the only Relief Bill that will satisfy, . 404 The Lords pass the Third Reading by a Majority of 104, . . 404 Section x — Omens and Lessons 'Petition for Repeal of Irish Church Establishment,' ist May 1829, 4^5 Analysis of Same, as Type and Precursor of many to follow, . 405 ' Was it the Establishment, or is it Popery, that curses Ireland ? ' 406 King's Speech, 24th June, and Aims of the Relief Measure, . 406 ' Tranquillity,' ' Improvement of Condition of Ireland,' and 'Union,' 407 Futility of Concessions to Popery,— Lesson for Patriots, . . 407 Chapter vii — Sapping and Mining Process since 1829 Immediate Fruits and Direct Consequences of Relief Act, . 408 Old Era and New, — the Struggle for Supremacy renewed, . 408 Section 1— The Main Themes of Conflict First Blow, at ' Irish Church,' by Newport, 4th March 1830, . 4P9 Next Blow, at the ' Act of Union,' by Daniel O'Connell, . . 409 Unveiling of the whole Moving Force in these Agitations, . 410 Two Main Demands ; one granted ;' the Drift of the Battle, 411 Soldiers, and ' Idolatrous ' Processions ; ' St. Spiridion,' . 412 'Violent and Inflammatory Speeches,'— O'Connell, and Sheil, . 412 O'Connell boasts of the Triumphs of Agitation in Ireland, . . 413 lxiv SYNOPSIS One Illustration of his Talent for Abuse, and its Lessons, . . 414 Death of George IV., and Accession of William IV., 25th June, 414 King's Speech, — Aims and Hopes as to Relief Act, falsified, . 415 Attack on Oath of Abjuration, and the Catholic Oaths, . . 415 Petition for Repeal of Union, — Stormy Personal Altercations, . 416 Personalities — Dawson, Beatson, and O'Connell, . . . 417 Incarnation of the Demands of the ' Emancipated' Catholics, 418 Petitions against the Union and the Irish Church to Earl Grey, 419 Newport's Reminiscences, — the Union, and the Local Parliament, 420 The Papal Party, and their Aims in seeking Emancipation, . 420 Inglis on the ' Oaths' Repeal Bill,' and the Succession Act, . 420 O'Connell tried by ' Emancipators,' — his Lame Defence, 1831, 421 Political Perplexities, — ' Tithe Collecting,' and Union ' Repeal,' 422 The Reform Bill, — Prorogation ' Scenes ' in the House of Lords, 422 ' Scenes ' in the Commons, — Russell, Vyvyan, etc., . . 424 Peel on the Despotism of ' Demagogues,' and of ' Journalists,' 425 ' New Powers and New Laws,' — the Retort Disagreeable, . . 425 Referendum to the Nation, — a Constitutional Course, . 426 Section ii— Maynooth Grant and New Education Scheme 'Abolition of Irish Establishment,' — Church in Danger, . ' Re-Establishment of Local Legislature in Ireland,' — Petition Tithe Collecting in Ireland, and Grant to Maynooth, Outcry over Term ' Idolatrous' in the Glasgow Petition, . Inglis on the ' Oath' of Members, and O'Connell on ' Infallibility Message regarding Alexandrina Victoria, 2d August 1831, Maynooth Grant again, — Petition and Debate, . Roman Clergy educated there less Learned and less Loyal, Prelates petition against Kildare Street Society Grants, New Scheme of Education,— Terms and Conditions, . The National Schools, — an Object-Lesson on ' Equality,' . Kildare Street Society,— its Three Distinctive Principles, . No Exclusiveness, but Bull from Rome against use of Bible, Gordon on Popish Books,— Protestants ' not Christians ' at all, Quotations ' mutilating and contradicting ' the Scriptures, . 426 426427 427 428 429 429 43° 431431 432 432433 434434 SYNOPSIS lxv PAGE Catechisms with and without the Second Commandment, . . 434 New Turn to Debate for Withdrawal of Maynooth Grant, . . 435 ' When is Theft " Mortal " Sin ? When is a Lie " Mortal " Sin ? ' 435 Versions of Scripture denounced as 'Gospels of the Devil,' . 436 Reform Bill Crisis, — Refusal of Supplies in 1832, . . . 436 Bill passed by Peers, — Peel's Illogical Rage and Scorn, . . 437 Russell's Talk about Finality and Security, as Vain as Peel's . 438 Roden on the State of Protestants in Ireland, and its Causes, . 438 The Popish Party, the Tithes' Funeral, and Exclusive Dealing, 439 Wellington unwittingly condemns his own Policy as to Relief, 439 The Rights of Women Petition, and how received in 1832, . 440 Section hi — Reformed Parliament and its Irish Friends No Surcease from Irish Disturbances or Popish Claims, 1833, Meaning of Oath taken by Roman Catholic Members, Dr. Lushington's Dictum, and his Modification of the Same, Temporalities Bill, — First Step in another Surrender, Petitions for Disestablishment in England and in Ireland, Repeal of the Legislative Union, and Dismemberment, Wellington's Manifesto, — our Policy since Reformation, . Grey's Manifesto, — on Strengthening Protestant Interests, Argumentum adhominem as to Coronation Oath, The Militia of Rome, and the Pursuit of Papal Claims, Reformed Parliament, and Lively Demands of Irish Friends, O'Connell's Speech on the Oaths by Catholic Members, 1834, 'Is there a Protestant Government now in this Country?' . The Pope's Authority here : Argument from Maynooth Case, Peel's Regrets and Confessions regarding his Past. Policy, Securities and Conditions of the' Relief Bill unwisely assailed, This Oath, and Oath of Supremacy, once not objected to, Dr. Lushington's New Dictum, — No Oath whatever desirable, Inglis on Essential Conditions of Protestant Government, . Balls kept Rolling,— Maynooth, Repeal, and Education, . Ward's Motion on Temporalities of the Irish Church, VOL. I. 441442 443 444 445 445 446446447 447 448 448 449 450 451 451 452453453 454 455 lxvi SYNOPSIS PAGE Government Surrender ; Peel's Abject Confession, — ' befooled ! ' 456 Bible-Burning Scene discussed in Parliament, .... 456 Fourth Rule of Trent, — the Written Permission to read Bibles, 458 Doyle commends Peasant for Burying the Bible, . . . 459 Encyclical and Pastoral, 1824, condemn Bible Reading, . . 459 Popery as it is, and as it will be, wheresoever it dares, . . 460 Grey's Resignation, and Peel's return to Power 460 Section iv — Five Years after Relief Act and its Lessons Russell's Motion on Surplus Revenues of Irish Church, 1835, . 461 Debate, Fatal to Peel's Ministry, Illustrative of our Theme, . 462 Serjeant Wilde on their ' Degradation ;' and O'Connell's ' Fairplay,' 462 Grandiloquent Non Sequitur, and Gospel of Intimidation, . 462 Peel's Speech, the Crowning Circumstance of the Debate, . . 463 Abstract and Absolute Right of the Legislature not denied, . 463 Review of Forty Years' Efforts at Conciliation by Concessions, . 464 One Concession only that can ' satisfy ' Papalists . . . 465 Further Resolution as to Legislation on Tithes, .... 465 Four Great Authorities quoted by Peel as to Irish Church, . 466 Resentment of Peel, and Resignation of the Peel Ministry, . 467 Sheil's Motion as to New Vested Interests in Church of Ireland, 467 Inglis on the Catholic Oath, and its Violation by Members, . 468 Melbourne's Ministry : Irish Tithes and Temporalities Bill, . 468 Priests' 'Daily Directory,' and Dens' 'Body of Theology,' . . 469 The Douay Bible, and Specimens of Rheimish ' Notes,' . . 469 O'Connell's Attack on these Notes at the Catholic Board, . . 470 Melbourne's Story of the Fighting Bishop, — Modern Trifling, . 471 Close of First Five Years since Relief Act, — Lessons and Omens, 472 Section v— Nine Years' Ceaseless Assaults Remaining Sections of History, how to be portrayed, 1836, . 473 Assault ceaselessly carried on,— Illustrative Examples, . . 473 Dr. Mullholland deprived for Prosecuting a Priest, . . . 474 Violation of Oaths, and Education at Maynooth, . . . 474 SYNOPSIS lxvii PAGE ' National Association,' — and 'Justice' to Ireland, 1837 . . 474 Lands and Tenements for Romish Worship ; Education in Ireland, 475 The ' Great Protestant Petition from Ireland,' — 24th January, . 475 Failure of Act of 1829, Fraud as to the Oath, and Peril of Union, 476 Death of William IV., and Accession of Victoria, 20th June, . 477 Petition for Repeal of Act of 1829, — Compact broken, . . 477 Demand for Exclusion of Roman Catholics from Legislature, 1 838, 478 Burning Question, Catholic Oaths, disapproval at Rome, . . 479 'John of Tuam' Debate, and O'Connell's Mistaken Laws, 1839, 480 Petition against the ' National System ' of Education, . . 481 The Title 'Archbishop of Tuam' refused, and Petition rejected, 481 Office of Lord Chancellor for Roman Catholics, — Question opened, 482 Another Mine, 'Catholic Chaplains,' — Modest Beginnings, 1842, 483 Mr. Ross's Bill for Relief from Catholic Oath, — and Fiasco, 1843, 484 Oranmore's Petition for Co-ordinate Endowment in Ireland, . 485 Ward's Motion for the ' Settlement of Church Property,' . . 486 The Abiding 'Grievance ' in the Esteem of Irish Papists, . . 486 Motion renewed under Peel's Ministry, and rejected, 1844, . 487 Penal Acts Repeal Bill, — Twenty-five Acts to be Repealed, . 487 Section vi — Maynooth Endowment and New Relief Bills Yearly Squabbles over the Maynooth Grant, .... 488 Peel's Endowment Scheme propounded, 3d April 1845, • • 488 ,£26,360 per Annum, and how vindicated by Peel, . . . 489 Dr. Troy's Memorial of 1794 for a Charter, and Inglis thereon, 490 Roebuck on O'Connell and 'Justice done to Ireland,' . . 450 Bright and Disraeli on Training and Endowing Priests, . . 491 Peel rejoices in the Kindly and Grateful Feelings produced, . 491 Another Bid for Tranquillity in Ireland by the ' Champions,' . 492 Wellington on Laws at Reformation, and Principles of Revolution, 492 Stanley's Forecast, — Existence of Irish Church, a Grievance, . 492 Protests by Peers, on the Passing of this Endowment Act, . 493 Peel's Second Great Surrender,—' befooled again,' ... 493 Watson's Penal Laws Relief Bill, 1845-1846, .... 493 lxviii SYNOPSIS As to Repealing Clauses of Act of 1829, — Peel's Non Possumus, Bill revived, and Criticisms thereon by Sir R. H. Inglis, 1847, Macaulay demands Repeal of certain Penal Provisoes, Peel's Total Dissent from Cancelling Securities of 1829, . The ' Unprotestantising ' of the Constitution by these Measures, Gladstone on the Act of 1829, and the Ancient Statutes, . Fatal Finessing, and Conflicting Principles at Work, Bill at last Slain by the Pope himself in 1850, . ' Diplomatic Relations with the Court of Rome,' 1848, Second Reading,— Lansdowne, Newcastle, Wellington, Bill attacked in the Commons by the Roman Catholics, 494 495496496 497497498 499499 500501 Section vii— Papal Aggression and Ecclesiastical Titles Lord John Russell on the Papal Aggression, 7th February 1851, Preceding Events, — Address by the Synod of Thurles, Appearance of the 'Letters Apostolic' in September, 1850. Territorial Sovereignty, insolently assumed and claimed, Prosecution Unadvisable under the Existing Laws, . Lord John's Assumed Simplicity, and Cullen's Claims, New Ecclesiastical Titles Bill proposed and defended, The Mantle of Peel, and his Spirit of Concession too, Bright's Argument on Grounds of Pure Secularism, . Disraeli's Exposure of the Government, and angling for Votes, Progress of Bill,— Chalking 'No Popery' on the Wall ! 502 5°3 5045045°5 5°5 506507507508509 Section viii — Roman Catholic Oaths Greater Questions before us, — to be Summarily Reviewed, . 510 Russell's Bill on the Catholic Oaths, May 1854, . . . 510 Campbell's, 1863, and Monsell's New Oaths Bill, 1865, . . 511 Sir George Grey's Parliamentary Oaths Bill of 1866, . . . 512 Progress through both Houses, — Practical Unanimity, . 512 Abolition of Declaration against Transubstantiation carried, 1867, 513 Another of Peel's Great Securities cancelled and gone, . . 514 SYNOPSIS lxix Section ix— The Irish Church Establishment Lines of Assault, — Russell's Answer to Moore, February 1853, . Shee's Bill of 1854, and Osborne's Motion for Committee, 1863, Dillwynn's Motion of 1865, and Sir John Gray's of 1866, . The Evolution or Natural History of an Irish ' Grievance,' The Final Attack, and the Forces that impelled it, 1868, . Gladstone's Three ' Resolutions ' on the Irish Church, Talk about removing 'Scandals' and securing 'Tranquillity,' Fifty Years of Humiliating Surrender, — not Statesmanship, Stanley's Amendment, — Majority of 56 for Gladstone, Resolution that the Irish Church Establishment ' Cease to Exist,' Consequent Resolutions, and Bill founded thereon, . Tremendous Victory for the Roman Catholic Party, . Gladstone's 'Established Church (Ireland) Bill of 1869,' . Maynooth is dismissed with the Sum of ^364,000, Reasons of Protest by Sixty Peers, — Two quoted in full, . Another Sacrifice in Vain ; Ulterior Objects of Romanists, Section x— Roman Catholics and Irish Education Defiant Demand for Papal Control, — Issues at Stake, 'New Departure' from Principles of National System, 1864, Object- Lesson on a National Scale as to ' Religious Equality,' The ' Model Schools ' attacked by the Roman Catholic Prelates, Negotiations for Roman Catholic University in Ireland, 1865, The New Government, and Questions by Fawcett, etc., 1867, Conditions rejected by the Roman Catholic Prelates, 1868, Chaffering with Priests of Rome openly avowed, Policy of Gladstone, — on Church, Land, and University, . Fawcett's Bill of 1871 and 1872 resented ; but passed in 1873, Queen's Speech on Roman Catholic University for Ireland, One Question raised, and only One, according to Gladstone, Theology, Philosophy, and Modern History to be excluded, Mad Proposals met with Laughter and Mockery, Disraeli's Attack on the Bill ; and the Policy of Confiscation, lxx SYNOPSIS PAGE Bill rejected by 3,— hence 'Vatican Decrees,' and 'Vaticanism,' 530 New Government,— Fascination of Irish Education Plans, 1879, 53° University Bill for Ireland, explained and defended, 531 Demands for Further Concessions, and Rumours, 1888, . . 532 Parnell and Balfour on ' Resolutions' of the Prelates, 1889, . 532 Removal of so-called 'Grievances' possible only in One Way, . 533 Section xi— Roman Catholic Disabilities and Relief Somerville's 'Relief Act Amendment Bill,' July 1859, . 534 Chancellorship of Ireland, — Leanings of Gladstone and Disraeli, 534 Sir Colman O'Loghlen's ' Offices and Oaths' Bill,' 1867, . . 535 Chancellorship and Lieutenancy, Robes of Office, and New Oath, 536 ' Transubstantiation Declaration ' Abolition, and Opening of Offices, 536 Gladstone on the Chancellorship, and the Lieutenancy, . , 537 Candlish's Motion leaving out Clause as to Lord-Lieutenant, . 538 Disraeli on the Irish Chancellorship, — Baiting his Hook again, . 538 Lieutenancy left out, Chancellorship conceded, — another Victory, 539 Section xii — Repeal of Ecclesiastical Titles Act Repeal Measures proposed in 1867-68-69, and in 1870, . . 540 Proposals dragged through Both Houses, and withdrawn, . 540 Ecclesiastical Titles Act Repeal Bill of 1871, .... 541 Proviso against authorising Pope's Titles — a Dead Letter, . 541 A Roman Catholic Victory, — the World of Flunkeys, . . 541 Section xiii — Lord Chancellorship and Lord Lieutenancy Marshalling of Forces, Uncommonly Slow, — Reasons, . . 542 Dictum of Coleridge in answer to O'Loghlen, in 1 872, . . 543 If so, Parliament entrapped by Fraud, and without Discussion, 543 Religious Disabilities Removal Bill, 1890-1891, .... 543 Sir John Pope Hennessy's Motion to ' relieve' the Sovereign also, 544 Launched by Bellingham, O'Donnell, and O'Loghlen, 1868-1881, 545 The Two Questions hang indissolubly together, . . . 545 Second Reading Debate, 4th February 1891, . . . 545 SYNOPSIS lxxi Gladstone's Legal Preface ; and Self-Consistency Vindicated, Basis of his Argument, and the Apparent ' Exceptions,' Not touching the Settlement of the Crown ! . . . Remaining Exceptions, and ' Odious ' Proscriptions, . Government's Reply, and the Loyalty of Roman Catholics, Main Objection, Hennessy's Position, 'Dates' and Lessons, A New Disability, and Familiar Disavowals from Protestants, Sir Henry James, and Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Bill lost by 32, but no Assurance for the Future, One Impregnable Line of Defence, — the Bill of Rights, 545 546 546 547 54854955o 55°55i 55i Section xiv — The Great and Final Issues Themes passed by, — Maynooth, Nunneries, etc., . . . 552 Great Issues arising in last Decade of the Century, . . . 552 Home Rule, now developed into Clerical Conspiracy, 1891, . 552 Prime Minister's Manifesto to Nation at General Election, 1892, 553 Appeal from Ireland to the Nonconformists of Britain, . . 554 Twenty-fifth Imperial Parliament, 4th August 1892, ... 555 Safety and Welfare of the Empire, not Partisan Politics, . . 555 Opening Chapter of the History that is to be, „ 556 BOOK FIRST THE STRUGGLE FOR SUPREMACY KING versus POPE a.d. 1066 — 1603 From the Norman Conquest till the death of Elizabeth VOL. I. CHAPTER I THE GAGE OF BATTLE a.d. 597—1246. OUR aim in producing this History is altogether prac tical. Every statement as to fact will be based upon the Parliamentary Records and Public Statutes of the British Empire. The principles at stake will thus be set forth in the pure and dry light of reason and of law ; and every unprejudiced reader will find himself in the best con ceivable position for forming a wise and deliberate opinion. The main line of our inquiry is sufficiently indicated by the title of the book ; but it may be necessary to announce again, even more explicitly, that we limit ourselves to the Parlia mentary and statutory aspects of the case. The relationships betwixt British History and Papal Claims, now to be inves tigated, are such as were constituted by Kings or by the Parliament of the Nation, and such as are inscribed, therefore, in the authoritative laws of the land. Antiquarians will find a fruitful and interesting field in tracing down from earliest ages the dim foreshadowings of a Parliament ; but we have time only for a passing glance. In England, there has prevailed an immemorial practice of holding some kind of National Council for the settlement of more important public affairs. Its best known ancient title seems to have been Wittena Gemote (=the Meeting of the Wise Men). So early as AD. 720, the days of the Heptarchy, the laws of Ina the King of the West Saxons were made and published — expressly 'by the advice and consent of 4 SAXON AND ANGLO-SAXON TIMES pooK i. La.d. 597 all his Aldermen and the Senior Wise- Men of his kingdom, besides a great number of the Clergy, assembled for the occasion.' 1 In the reign of King Edgar, about 970, a great Council or Assembly of all the Nobles of the kingdom was held at Salisbury ; and another at Oxford by Canute the Dane in 1030. It is, however, open to dispute whether the Commons of England, destined hereafter to play so great a part in history, had any place whatever in these National Councils that preceded the Norman Conquest ; unless, indeed, it can be proved that the Senior Wise-Men, referred to above, represented them, as distinct from the Nobles and the Clergy. Referring to the Saxon and Anglo-Saxon times, so far as bearing on our special theme, there was then, properly speaking, no claim of Papal Supremacy, and consequently the struggle had not really begun. For, from the days of Augustine, about 597 — not to go back upon the earlier British Church at all — till the Norman Conquest in 1066, all English kings in their own Local Courts and National Councils regu lated the affairs of the Church within their own dominions, from the highest to the lowest — the King, the Clergy, and the Nobility sitting in mixed Assemblies to administer all things in the realm, spiritual as well as civil. No jurisdiction from abroad, especially none whatever from the Papal Court, challenged their submission, and therefore no submission was or could be rendered.2 When, for instance, Wilfrid of York threatened, in his long-drawn suit with the see of Canterbury, to appeal to the Court of Rome, about 670, the threat was received with laughter, as a thing never before heard of in England ! Old Malmesbury says : ' Subsannatoribus qui propter regem astarent in visum crepantibus.' Again, Edgar the Pacific, who reigned from 959 to 975, fearlessly proclaimed in the hearing of Dunstan — first of the great ecclesiastical statesmen of whom Wolsey was the last — and with the enthusiastic approval of 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. i. 2 Ingram's England, and Rome, p. 25. chap. I. ] EARLY ROYAL SUPREMACY fi a.d. 1066I J his Nobles and of the Nation, as claiming no novelty, but their immemorial right and liberty, 'That the King of England held the sword of Constantine ; that he was in his own dominions the Lord's Husbandman, the Pastor of pastors, and the Representative of Christ on Earth.' 1 So that the phrase of the ordinary historian about Tudor Supremacy is an entire misnomer, if it suggests that the supremacy claimed by England over her own Church in all its interests was a novelty, the late invention of Henry and Elizabeth. It would be truer to history to call it ' Saxon' Supremacy ! For, in fact, and finally under this head, no Pope claimed or enjoyed more complete and exclusive domination over the Romish Church in any age than our Kings before the Conquest claimed and enjoyed over the Church within their borders and over all its. concerns ; as witness the definition of the supreme sovereignty of the King in the 'laws of Edward the Confessor,'2 who reigned from 1042 to 1066 : — ' Rex autem, qui vicarius Summi Regis est, ad hoc constitutus est, ut regnum et populum Domini, et super omnia Sanctam Ecclesiam, regat et defendat ab injuriosis, male- ficos autem destruat et evellat! The ruler and the people whose position is described in these words were simply unconscious of the idea of being 'dominated' by any foreign authority either in civil or in sacred things. Descending now to the Norman Conquest, the last quarter of the eleventh century, the days of William the Conqueror and of William Rufus his immediate successor — 1066 to 1 100 — we find that, though then the supremacy of the King was in some sense challenged, it had only the effect of bringing out more forcibly than ever the reassertion of the sovereignty and independence of the Crown over all affairs within the realm, sacred not less than civil. John Richard Green — after referring to the deposition of Stigand and the summoning of Lanfranc from Normandy to Canter- 1 Twysden, Scrip tores, a. p. 360. 2 Thorpe's Laws and Institutes, p. 193. 6 NORMAN KINGS VERSUS POPES [book I. La.d. i ioo bury, with the permission under him of courts more or less purely ecclesiastical, as distinct from the mixed Councils of old, where Laics and Clerics under Kings adjudicated on all things brought before them, whether of Church or State — proceeds thus to summarise the position of affairs under the Conqueror : — ' William still enforced his supremacy over the Church. Homage was exacted from Bishops as from Barons. No royal vassal could be excommunicated without the King's licence. No Synod could legislate without his previous assent and subsequent confirmation of its decrees. No Papal letters could be received within the realm, save by his permission.' * In fact, when the preposterous Claims of Supremacy began to be put forward at this time by the Court of Rome, as we find them crystallised in the monstrous declaration of Pope Gregory VII. — ' Nos imperia, regna, principatus, et quicquid habere mortales possunt, auferre et dare posse''1 — William of England was the one ruler of that century who dared, not only firmly to repudiate these claims, but also, when directly called upon by Gregory to do fealty to the Papacy for his realm, the Conqueror sternly replied, ' Fealty I never willed to do, nor do I will to do it now. I have never promised it ; nor do I find that my predecessors did it to yours.'3 Further, the same spirit burned on in William Rufus, when Anselm became obstreperous, and asked leave to go to Rome to receive his pallium from Urban n., as yet unrecognised, and the son of the Conqueror replied, 'that it was neither his father's custom nor his own to allow any of his subjects to recognise the Pope without his leave.'4 After wards, when Urban had been recognised as Pope, Anselm, still troubling the King with requests to be allowed to go to Rome, had the licence thrice refused within twelve months ; 1 Green's i1. H. ch. ii. sect. v. p. 82. 2 Ingram's England and Rome, quoted from Platina, p. 84. 3 Green's S. H. ch. ii. sect. v. p. 83. 4 Ingram, p. 29. Eadmer, p. 52. chap. i. ] pope PASCHAL'S LETTERS 7 a.d. i 107 J and the third refusal was accompanied by Rufus with the offer of these sharp alternatives : ' Either swear never to refer to the Papal Court for any cause whatever, or leave the kingdom at once.'1 But, last of all, our supreme and unimpeachable witness that all this was so in the Norman and pre-Norman times is none other and no less than the Holy Pope himself ! For, in letters to the King of England, and to the King and Bishops, in the second decade of the twelfth century, Pope Paschal II., bitterly complaining that no communication between Eng land and Rome was allowed by the King and the English Bishops, exclaims : — ' You settle among yourselves the busi ness relating to Bishops, without even consulting us. You will not allow the oppressed to make their appeal to the Apostolic See. You venture, without our knowledge, to celebrate Councils and Synods!'2 Yea, they had reached the climax of depravity in this, which is at the same time a witness to their self-government and absolute independence of Papal Supremacy ; for he continues : ' We are astonished and grieved that so little regard is paid to St. Peter in your dominions ; for neither Nuncios, nor letters of the Apostolic See, can make their way into your kingdom, or receive any countenance, without the consent of your Majesty.' This settles the matter beyond all cavil ; and no wonder that the Pope cried — grieving that one Church and nation had never been as yet under the heel of the Papacy — ' Miramur vehementius et gravamur /'3 Perhaps, therefore, in view of all this, and in the prosecu tion of our special theme, the first Convention that more directly concerns us here, as having the semblance of a Parliament, was that held in London in the reign of Henry I. He had dispossessed his elder brother, Robert of Normandy, of his succession to the crown of England, put out his eyes, and condemned him to perpetual imprisonment. In an ex- 1 Eadmer, p. 84. " For letters, see Eadmer, 228-232. s Eadmer, p. 228. 8 CONVENTIONS OF ALL ESTATES \B00K »• I A.D. 1 1 64 traordinary assembly of the Nobles, he had already solemnly pledged himself to preserve their 'ancient liberties,' and ' to strengthen this promise with a written Charter,' if they should desire it But Matthew Paris says that he was jealous and crafty and false, and ' thought to make up the matter with God by the building of an Abbey.'1 Now, the said Convention, which he called in 1 107 to sit within his Royal Palace at London, is described as a ' Con vention of all the Estates of the realm.' One main subject of its deliberations was the particularly unsavoury one of ' prohibiting to priests the use of their wives and concubines.' The Bishops and Clergy granted to the King ' the correction of that offence.' And one can almost see, through all those dirty records, the merry twinkle with which his Majesty undertook the task ; for he ' corrected ' them, and filled his own exchequer at the same time ' with vast sums of money,' by ' compounding with the priests, for certain annual pay ments, to allow them the enjoyment of their wives and concu bines.' 2 This old villain of a King had manifestly strange ideas about concessions to Popery ! But the Convention of Estates summoned by Henry II. to meet at Clarendon, A.D. 1 164, makes the nearest approach to our idea of a Parliament. It consisted of ' Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and Nobles of the realm ;' and by the King's command his own chaplain, John de Oxford, was appointed president. This assembly is his torically memorable for having passed the Sixteen Articles, known as 'the Constitutions of Clarendon.' Till now the Church Courts, as readjusted by William the Conqueror, had claimed and exercised 'exclusive jurisdiction' over all ecclesiastical persons, though always and expressly under the sole supremacy of the King. But as the first Henry had roughly shorn ' the Local Courts of feudal Baronage ' of all their power by his judicial reforms in the civil sphere, our 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 3. 2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 4. chap. I. 1 CONSTITUTIONS OF CLARENDON Q A.D. I164J second Henry resolved to strike a blow at the claim of ex clusive ecclesiastical jurisdiction which had developed out of William's Charter to Lanfranc.1 The Constitutions contain a sort of concordat betwixt Church and State. Many of the Articles are simply a re- enactment of the system established by the Conqueror, and are thus summarised by John Richard Green: — 'The election of Bishop or Abbot was to take place before royal officers, in the King's chapel, and with the King's assent. The Prelate- elect was bound to do homage to the King for his lands before consecration, and to hold his lands as a Barony from the. King, subject to all feudal burthens of taxation and attendance in the King's Court. No Bishop might leave the realm without the royal permission. No tenant-in-chief or royal servant should be excommunicated, or their land placed under interdict, but by the King's assent' 2 But the legislation regarding ecclesiastical jurisdiction was wholly new. ' The King's Court was to decide whether a suit between clerk ( = cleric) and layman, whose nature was disputed, belonged to the Church Courts or the King's. A royal officer was to be present in all ecclesiastical proceed ings in order to confine the Bishop's Court within its own due limits ; and a clerk on being convicted there passed at once under the civil jurisdiction. An appeal was left from the Archbishop's Court to the King's Court for defect of justice. The privilege of " Sanctuary " in churches or churchyards was repealed, so far as property and not persons might be con cerned ; and no serfs son could be admitted to orders without his lord's permission.' Thomas a Becket, once knight and soldier side by side with this King in France, and now Archbishop of Canterbury, passionately resisted these restrictions upon the Church's sovereignty. But the King would brook no denial, and Becket at last set his seal to the Constitutions, which, how- 1 Hansard's P. H. p. 6. - Green's S. H. ch. ii. sect. viii. p. 103. IO THE MAGNA CHARTA [book I. La.d. 1215 ever, he again solemnly retracted. His exile for six years, his return in n 70, and his tragic death on the chancel- steps of his own cathedral, form one of the thrilling pages of our national history. Let us do him the justice of admitting that he at least clearly saw the issues, and understood the gage of battle that had been thrown down. Either the Romish Church or the British State must be sovereign. "The last appeal must be either to the Court of the King or to the Court of Rome. The Red King and Thomas a Becket, each in his own clear-eyed and resolute way, knew well what they were fighting for, and fought with the passion of an early love at last changed into hate. We now come to what is generally regarded as the greatest event in our constitutional history. On 15 th June 121 5 the Barons, assembling at Runnymede (or mead), on the Thames near Windsor, wrung the Magna Charta Libertatum from the miserable King John. That deed, one copy of which may still be looked on in the British Museum, ' with the royal seal hanging from the shrivelled parchment,' has been cherished and almost idolized by patriots ever since, as the true foun dation of our Parliamentary liberties, and the impregnable bulwark against all claims of arbitrary government. Though forced from the King, as it were, in a single day — John finding himself with ' only seven horsemen in his train, face to face with a Nation in arms against him' — the Charter in itself was ' no novelty, nor did it claim to establish new constitutional principles.' It was based upon the dearly cherished laws of King Edward the Confessor, which had ever since been re garded as embracing the 'ancient liberties' of the realm. It went openly and avowedly also upon ' the Charter of Henry I.' as its statutory foundation ; and added thereto a formal recog nition of ' the principal judicial and administrative changes ' introduced by Henry II. It took up, so to speak, into itself, and enacted in precise and legal form, all that was best in ' the unwritten customs and vague Charters ' of the past ; chap. I. 1 POPE INNOCENT VERSUS KING JOHN II A.D. I2I5I and so the Magna Charta is the natural introduction and preface to ' the Age of Parliaments and Statutes.' Liberties and privileges were thus granted or secured to the three great sections of the community— the Clergy, the Barons, and the People. The clauses as to the Church and the barons introduce little that is positively new, or that proved at length permanently vital, and do not need to delay us further here. But the privileges claimed for and granted to the people have been among the great creative forces in the development of our history. ' No freeman,' ran the most memorable of all the articles, ' shall be seized or imprisoned or dispossessed of his free tenement and liberties, or outlawed or banished, or in any wise hurt or injured, save by the legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.'1 This King John was he who had at first resisted and defied Pope Innocent III. rather than admit Stephen Langton to the see of Canterbury, in place either of his own nominee, John de Grey, Bishop of Norwich, or of Reginald, the sub- prior of the convent, the nominee of the monks. The King resented fiercely this Papal usurpation of the rights both of the Church and the Crown ; and upon the threat of an interdict from Rome, he retorted that he 'would banish the Clergy and mutilate every Italian he could seize.' The interdict at last fell upon the realm ; two years later, sentence of excommunication was issued ; and finally, in 121 2, Pope Innocent 'deposed' John from the kingship of England, and proclaimed a ' crusade' against him. Treating the whole affair with disdain, John boldly crossed with fleet and army to Dieppe, attacked and routed Philip — who had at the Pope's injunction assembled forces for the invasion of England — and formed a vast combination with the Barons of Poitou and the Count of Flanders and Otho of Germany to crush the power of France. In working out this scheme, it was indispensable for John to become reconciled to the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 8, 9. Hume, vol. i. ch. xi. p. 195. Green, ch. iii. sect. iii. p. 124. 12 BLOTS ON MAGNA CHARTA [book I. l.A.D. 1215 Pope, for the allies would not fight side by side with an ' excommunicated' King. With an unblushing cynicism, John made his submission to Innocent. He received Stephen Langton as Archbishop ; he ' resigned ' both his crown and kingdom into the hands of the Papal Legate ; and amid the ill-suppressed disgust of his Court he received them back again ' to be held by fealty and homage as a vassal of the Pope of Rome.' It only remains here to say that when, despite all his dreams of victory over Philip and revenge on his own Barons, John returned from his invasion of France humiliated and baffled, the man that took the lead in securing the Magna Charta, and building this greatest bulwark against the per sonal despotism of tyrants, was, strange to say, none other than Stephen Langton of Canterbury ; he took his stand, in a measure, against the claims of the Pope himself, and became the champion of the 'ancient liberties' of the realm, as well as of ' the privileges of the Church.' It need, therefore, not surprise us that the articles in the Magna Charta bearing upon the Clergy and their privileges have a distinct smack of concession to the claims of the Papacy, as against the supremacy of the Kings. For instance, any fines that might be imposed upon the Clergy were henceforth to be 'proportioned to their lay estates, and not to their ecclesiastical benefices,' — a skilful trick for handing over the third of the national wealth to the control of Pope versus King ! Again, the ' freedom of elections ' was secured to the Clergy, which meant in practice that they should be 'free' to promote their own nominees or the nominees of the Pope (even when these were aliens, or, worse still, not only foreigners but enemies to this country) to power and office in the Church, which gave them an influence scarcely second to that of the King on the throne, without the necessity of any royal confirmation or conge" d'elire ; and finally, most significant of all, liberty was granted for any man to ' depart chap. I. I GRIEVANCES AGAINST THE POPES 1 3 A.D. I246I J the kingdom ' at pleasure ; and so all check upon the mis chievous ' Appeals to Rome ' was taken out of the way, and a deadly stab was given to the supremacy of the King and the sovereign independence of the kingdom. 1 Not long have we to wait till we learn how the Papacy utilised and abused these concessions, despite every protest alike from the King and the Barons, and even the native Clergy themselves. We present our readers with the sub stance of a Parliamentary document submitted to the Bishops, Earls and Barons, Abbots and Priors, assembled in London by King Henry III. in 1246. It contains England's Grievances against the Pope, and specifies the following among others : — ' That the Pope, not content with the payment of Peter- pence, oppressed the kingdom by extorting from the Clergy great contributions, without the King's consent. . . . That the patrons could not present fit persons to the Churches of the kingdom, because they were given by the Pope's letters to Italians, who understood not the English language, and carried all the money out of the kingdom, to the great im poverishment of the same. . . . That the English were forced to prosecute their rights out of the kingdom, against the custom and written laws thereof. . . . That the Church and kingdom infinitely suffered by reason of the clause of Non Obstante, which weakened and enervated all oaths, ancient customs, written laws, grants, statutes, and privileges. That in the parishes where the Italians were beneficed there were no alms, no hospitality, no preaching, no divine service, no care of souls, nor any reparations done to the parsonage houses.'2 Every one of these grievances is a window through which the reader can look back upon the field of battle. The gage has been thrown into the midst. The prize is that of supremacy. The main combatants are now introduced — Pope, and King, and Parliament. The chapters that follow will unfold the issues. 1 Hume, ch. xi. p. 194. 2 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 22, 23. CHAPTER II PRELIMINARY SKIRMISHES A.D. 1272 — 1366. IN the years to which we have- now come, a brave and high-spirited king sat upon the throne, by the name of Edward I. He was deep in wars against France, and called upon the Clergy to tax themselves and raise a ' subsidy ' for the support of his armies, as the Laity had generously done. But the Pope had threatened them with excommunication if they dared to do so, and the Clergy refused their aid. The King, enraged, summoned them to meet him in Parliament at London in 1297, and give their final answer. The Arch bishop of Canterbury, Robert de Winchelsea,1 as their spokes man, declared ' that though they had both a Spiritual Lord and a Temporal, the Pope and the King, and though they owed both obedience,' yet they were under ' more subjection ' to the Pope ; but that, lest both the King and they should incur the ' fearful ' sentence of excommunication, they were willing to send ' special messengers ' to ask ' instructions from the Hoi}' Father.' Edward's reply was fierce and swift ; he instantly, with consent of the Parliament, 'outlawed' the whole body of the Clergy, and seized for his national uses their entire lands and possessions. The Chief Justice pro nounced sentence in these words : — ' You that are proctors or attorneys for the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots and Priors, with the rest of the Clergy, take notice to acquaint all your masters, that for the future no manner of justice shall be done them in any of the King's Courts on any cause whatsoever, 1 Alias Winchelsey. chap. II. ] JEALOUSY OF PAPAL CLAIMS 1 5 A.D. 1299 I but justice will be had against them to every one that will complain and require it of us.' 1 The masterful spirit of this same Edward and his barons sometimes led to lively scenes amongst themselves as well as against the Clergy. For instance, the King insisted upon the Nobles going to the French wars. The Earl-Mareschal, Roger Bygot,2 flatly declared that he would only go if the King went in person ; otherwise he refused. ' By G ,' shouted the King in rage, ' Sir Earl, you shall either go or hang ! ' ' And, Sir King,' boldly retorted the earl, ' by G , I will neither go nor hang ! ' So the Parliament broke up in confusion, no further business being possible on these terms. But no ' ill correspondence ' amongst themselves prevented ' the King and his Barons and Knights passing an ordinance that if the Clergy did not make their peace with the King within a certain time,' they should ' lose everything already seized,' and it should be no longer 'lawful for any one to have any common dealings with them.'3 These wild reprisals are reproduced here to show how the concessions to the Church had been shamelessly abused by the Court of Rome to the promotion of its own alien interests and to the detri ment of this kingdom. The usurpations and exactions of the Papacy, falling thick and fast, had galled the neck of England to the quick. And now we see the war-horse beginning to rear and plunge. Though some kind of modus vivendi betwixt the King and the Clergy was apparently devised, Edward showed to the last an intense jealousy of Papal Claims. When, in 1299, he submitted to the ' arbitration and award ' of Pope Boni face, as betwixt himself and the King of France, 'for the settlement of a firm and stable peace,' Edward was careful to explain to his Parliament that the Pope had not been appealed to as their 'judge,' but only appointed arbiter 'as a private person under the name of Benedict Cajetan.' 4 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 43. s Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 45. 2 Alias Bigod. 4 Ibid. p. 47. 1 6 BRISTLING MESSAGE TO THE POPE [book i. ¦ Ia.d. 1307 When, again, the same Pope claimed the ' Kingdom of Scotland as a fief of the See of Rome,' as against the claims of the Kings of England, Edward sent back a reply ' sealed with 100 seals' of Earls, Barons, and Nobles, in which, after the usual formalities, the following vital declaration occurs : — ' Whence, upon a due consideration and treating of the con tents of your memorable letter, the common and unanimous consent of all and singular was, is, and will be, God willing, for ever : That our aforesaid lord the King ought not to answer judicially before you, nor submit his rights over the realm of Scotland, nor any other of his temporal rights zvhatsoever, to your doubtful judgment' And they close with humbly and reverently beseeching his Holiness 'kindly to permit the King, himself a true Catholic and devoted to the See of Rome (!?) to possess quietly all his rights, liberties, customs, and laws, without diminution or disturbance ; ' affirming for the satisfaction of Boniface that they have ' put their seals to these presents, not only for themselves, but for the whole community of the aforesaid realm of England.'1 Finally, in his last Parliament, held at Carlisle in 1307, Edward's temper asserted itself against the exactions of Rome by sending a bristling message to the Pope re garding his agent, William Testa, an Italian priest. The grumbles were loud and deep against his 'several oppres sions and exactions of money for the Pope from the churches and monasteries of this kingdom, not hitherto used.' By the consent of the Earls and Barons, an interdict was laid on the proceedings of Testa ; and messengers were despatched to the Pope to say, as politely as they could, but with unmis takable precision : ' England tells you that this sort of thing must cease !' 2 Moving down the stream of history, we find ourselves in Parliament at Westminster, A.D. 1338 ; and once more we learn how the concessions to the Papacy are being 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 52. 2 Ibid. p. 53. chap. ii. 1 ALIEN PRIORIES SEIZED 1 7 a.d. 1338J abused, and where the shoe is pinching the foot of England. Edward III. is now king, and finds himself embroiled like his predecessors in war with France. The Royal Exchequer is exhausted. The Clergy as well as the Laity have granted, or have had imposed upon them, a very heavy subsidy. The King with perfect equanimity, and with the assurance that the Nation at his back would rejoice in the deed, then pro ceeded to seize ' the goods and revenues of all the alien and foreign Priories within the borders of England.' These barnacles were fastening on the body of the kingdom, and were draining away its very life-blood. But foreigners though they were, Edward frankly recognised their useful ness so far, and ' farmed out' to the monks of the Cluniac and Cistercian Orders their own lands at a fair rent, to be paid duly to him during all these years of war. It was after all a not ungentle way of forcing his enemies to disgorge; besides, it promoted agriculture.1 The relationship of this King also to the Popes was, as might be anticipated from the above beginning, strained and stormy during his long reign of more than fifty years. But, as we shall perceive, a clear gain was made in the way of limiting the ancient concessions to Popery, and several strong measures were taken for asserting and vindicating the independence and sovereignty of the kingdom. In the Parliament, called in 1341, the King had a tussle with the Archbishop of Canterbury, against whom certain) charges were pending in the Court of Exchequer. Sir William Attwood, the Captain of the Guard, refused to admit him to the House, and the Archbishop, taking the Cross in his hands, planted himself sturdily at the door, declaring ' that he would not budge till the King gave him leave to come into Parliament, or a sufficient reason why he should not' By-and-bye he was admitted, and humbly asked his Majesty's gracious pardon, ' offering to purge himself law- 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 95. VOL. I. B 1 8 THE ARBITRAMENT OF THE POPE [book i. Ia.d. 1343 fully in Parliament' Thereafter, without further accusation or trial, ' the King of his own accord declared him legally purged and excused.' ' His Majesty,' says Joshua Barnes, 'had no mind to destroy so able a Minister, but only to humble him and break his high prelatical obstinacy, which for a while seemed ready to cope with the regal power.'1 In connection with the truce betwixt England and France, and a proposed treaty of peace, a special Parliament was summoned in 1343; and their resolution and advice there anent demand our attention. The question submitted was this — Ought the King to send envoys to the Court of Rome to propound his rights before the Pope as arbiter, or not ? The Lords spiritual and temporal were commanded to meet by themselves, and similarly the Knights of counties, and the Commons, to meet by themselves, to ' treat and advise,' for, ever since the Parliament of 1332, in the sixth year of this Edward's reign, the Great Council of the Nation had taken to thus splitting itself into two ; and so our Houses of Legis lature are seen to be slowly growing towards their present shape. On the day appointed, in full Parliament, the follow ing advice was unanimously tendered, and concurred in ' by the Prelates and great men, the Knights of counties and the Commons : ' — ' That the truce was honourable and advanta geous to the King and all his friends, . . . and that the King should send messengers to Rome, to lay before the Pope, as a mediator and friend but not as a judge, his rights and demands in order to a treaty of peace.'2 The jealous care with which every pretence of Papal Supremacy is thus guarded against betrays the keen resentment of the Legisla ture, caused by the manner in which all concessions to the Papacy had hitherto been abused by the Court of Rome. To this same Parliament also, in the seventeenth year of the reign of Edward III., 1343, we trace the origin of one of the strongest Parliamentary bulwarks against the Papacy 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 103. s Ibid. vol. i. p. 106. chap. ii. 1 XHE STATUTE OF PROVISORS IQ a.d. 1343I that was erected in any country of Europe before the Refor mation ; that is, the famous Statute of Provisors. It came up in the shape of a grievous complaint of the Commons against the Pope : that he made reversionary grants, called ' Provisions of Benefices,' during the lifetime of incumbents, and ' reserved' for his own private patronage whatsoever benefices he thought fit ; that he ' took up beforehand the future vacancies of ecclesiastical dignities for aliens and such as had nothing to do within this realm ;' that ' manifold inconveniencies ensued thereby,' such as the ' decay of hospitality, the transporting of treasure, the discovering of the secrets of the kingdom, and the utter impoverishing of our native scholars ; ' and, finally, that the King and his Lords must either find ' some remedy for these intolerable encroach ments and heavy oppressions,' or unite with the Commons ' forcibly to expel the Papal power out of this realm.' Thereon, King, Lords, and Commons called for an Act of the thirty-fifth year of Edward I., 1 307, wherein the Parlia ment at Carlisle, on a similar complaint, ' utterly forbade to bring or attempt to bring anything into this realm which should tend to the diminution of the King's prerogative or the prejudice of his Lords and Commons.'1 They then proceeded thus fortified to pass the famous Act of Provision, prohibiting 'the bringing in of any Bull or the like trinkets from the Court of Rome, or the using, allowing, or enjoying of any process or instrument obtained from thence.' The Prelates and Clergy of course objected, and seemed rather resolved to protest against the measure, 'till the King peremptorily commanded them to surcease such presumption.' 2 Sir John Shoreditch was sent to Avignon with a special letter on this subject, 'given in full Parliament at West minster, the 1 8th May 1343,' to Clement 'the chief Bishop 1 Coke, in his Institutes, calls this the foundation of all the Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire. — Ency. Brit. s.v. 2 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 107. 20 PARLIAMENT'S LETTER TO THE POPE [book I. La.d. 1343 of the Holy, Roman, and Catholic Church,' than which surely never anything more bracing ever fell on Papal ears. His humble and devout children, 'the Princes, Dukes, Earls, Barons, Knights, Citizens, Burgesses, and all the Commonalty of the realm of England devoutly kiss his holy feet' And then they proceed to tell him how their noble Kings, their ancestors, and they themselves, have ' established, founded, and endowed Cathedrals and Churches, Colleges and Abbeys, Priories and divers other religious houses,' of all which such only were to have the cure, 'as were meet in their own mother tongue of England effectually to teach and inform their flock.' He being ' so far distant,' and they ' having full and perfect intelligence,' his dear and devout children think fit to declare, ' that divers reservations, provisions, and col lations by your Apostolic predecessors, and by you also, Most Holy Father, have been granted and now more illegally than heretofore, unto divers persons, as well strangers and of other nations, as unto some who are our professed enemies. All which errors and abuses and slanders we neither can nor ought any longer to suffer or endure. . . . Wherefore, we most humbly require your Holiness that it may please you that such reservations, provisions, and collations may be utterly repealed, and that such order and remedy be forthwith taken therein, that the said benefices, edifices, offices, and rights, . with their appurtenances, may be supplied, occupied, and governed by our own countrymen to the honour of God.' And having presented 'this lawful request and demand,' they ask his Holiness to signify by letter what his pleasure is, and that ' without delay or further protracting of time.' x One feels the throb of passion in every sentence of this epistle. It also is a window through which we can look into the very heart of the England of that day. Concession after concession only emboldened the Papacy to make encroach ment upon encroachment. The ' Statute of Provisors ' was 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 108-9. chap. ii. 1 SECOND STATUTE OF PROVISORS 21 A.D. I347I hurled against the usurpations of the Court of Rome, and marks an era in the struggle for supremacy. Nor was this famous Act allowed to remain a dead letter on the Statute Book. Edward, bound for France in 1346, and needing money for the war, seized, by advice of his Parliament, ' all the profits, revenues, and emoluments, which the Cardinals of the French faction and other foreign Clergy held within his realm.'1 Among the ' Petitions of the Commons' presented to the King in Parliament in 1347 were the following : — ' That all alien monks do avoid this realm by Michaelmas, and that their livings be disposed of to young English scholars, and that such aliens, enemies, as are advanced to livings (being but shoemakers, tailors, or chamberlains of Cardinals' !) may depart the realm before Michaelmas, and their livings be bestowed upon poor English scholars. . . . That foreign provisors, or aliens buying provi sions, do quit the realm by Michaelmas on peril of being outlawed.' And the King's answer was : — ' The Statute here tofore made shall be observed, and the King shall signify the same unto the Pope.'2 In this same Parliament it was enacted, with, if possible, still greater stringency, ' that no person bring into the realm, to any Bishops or other, any Bull or other letters from the Court of Rome, or from any alien, unless he first show the same to the Lord Chancellor or to the Warden, on loss of all that he hath.'3 In a succeeding Parliament in 1 351, it was again enacted, 'that any man who purchased any Provisions of Abbeys or Priories in the Court of Rome, both he and his executors should be out of the King's protection, and dealt with as enemies to the King and his kingdom ; ' and this has come to be known as the Second Statute of Provisors.* Yet again, in the Parliament of 1364, on the King's 1 Hansard's/5. H. vol. i. p. m. 2 Ibid. p. 114. 3 Ibid. p. 115. 4 Ibid. p. 11S. 22 A GRAND NATIONAL EPISODE [book I. 1a. d. 1366 personal complaint 'that Provisions were procured from Rome for ecclesiastical dignities, at the great scandal of the ancient laws, and the derogation of his Crown,'1 — a still further attempt was made to devise a more stringent statute and more deterrent penalties. And so on, with incessant urgency, in every Parliament till the death of Edward III. in 1377. But we cannot part with this illustrious King till we recall that grand episode wherein he deals with the threat of the Pope, ' to cite him to appear at his Court at Avignon to answer for his defaults, in not performing the homage nor paying the tribute to the See of Rome, undertaken and guaranteed by John, King of England, for himself and his heirs.' Edward submitted this to his Parliament in 1 366, and required their advice ; it was given by ' the Bishops, Lords, and Commons,' after full deliberation, in the following memorable words : — ' That neither King John nor any other king could bring himself, his realm, and people, under such subjection without their assent ; . . . that if done, it was without consent of Parliament and contrary to his coronation oath, . . . and that, in case the Pope should attempt to constrain the King and his subjects to perform what he lays claim to, they would resist and withstand him to the uttermost of their power.'2 Every word in this answer rings as a bugle note of personal freedom and national independence. The battle for the supremacy will soon be waged all along the line, and one or other of the combatants must be overthrown. Mean time, these preliminary skirmishes have revealed their points of weakness or of strength. They have measured swords. They have tested each other's mettle. They feel that some day, and that ere long, they must fight for life or death. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 129. 2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 130. CHAPTER III THE TRIANGULAR DUEL a.d. 1377— 1412. RICHARD II. was a king of a less masterful spirit, and, during his troubled and unfortunate reign, 1377- 1399, the Clergy made bold attempts to regain some of the con cessions that had been lost, but only with doubtful success. For instance, in the Parliament that sat at Northampton in 1380, by which, in order to raise a subsidy for the King's armies in Scotland, France, and Ireland, the hated Poll Tax was imposed, being a capitation of 'three groats for every person above fifteen years,' the Speaker of the Commons, Sir John Gildersburgh, was instructed to make in full Parlia ment the following declaration : — ' That they would grant the needed subsidy on condition that the Clergy should support a third part of the charge, which was but reasonable, for that they possessed a third part of the kingdom!1 But the Prelates haughtily replied, — 'That their grants were never made in Parliament, but in their own Convocation ; that Laymen neither had, nor ought to have, any power to assess or to constrain them ; and that they claimed and would act upon the liberty of the Church.' That liberty of the Church manifested itself most un scrupulously and discreditably in connection with the smug gling through of an Act, known as the Statute of Heresy. The Commons affirmed that it had been 'surreptitiously introduced ' by the Clergy in the last session of the preceding 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 172. 23 24 THE STATUTE OF HERESY [book i. Ia.d. 1382 Parliament, and had had ' the formality of an enrolment ' with out their knowledge. They therefore petitioned the King, AD. 1382, that, 'forasmuch as the statute entitled "An Act to commission Sheriffs to apprehend Preachers of Heresy and their Abettors" was made without their consent and never authorised by them, and as it never was their meaning to bind themselves, or their successors, to the Prelates no more than their ancestors had done before them, they prayed that the aforesaid statute might be repealed.'1 It was accordingly repealed ; but ' by the artifice of the Bishops,' this Act of Repeal was suppressed, and prosecutions for heresy went on more briskly than ever. John Wycliffe had just been condemned at Blackfriars. He and his ' Poor Preachers' had been flooding the land with the new light of the forgotten Evangel of Jesus. And here we see the unsheathing of the sword of persecution against the Lollards ; and, quite characteristically, it is done under pretence of law, yet in absolute defiance of the actual laws of the land. The Parliament of 1390, which met at Westminster, pre sents us with the following curious incident, throwing cross- lights over many questions that interest us here. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York 'for themselves and the whole Clergy of their provinces,' made the following suggestive Protestation in open Parliament : — ' That they neither intended nor would assent to any statute or law to be made against the Pope's authority.'2 At their request this was entered upon the roll, and stands there accordingly. Thereon, as if to make the ' galled jade wince,' the Parliament deliberately set itself to ' put some further shackles upon the Court of Rome.' The ' Statute of Provisors' was reaffirmed ; penalty was re-declared ' against every one that accepted a benefice ' contrary thereto ; and a 'forfeiture ' awarded against any who should bring summons or excommunication on 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 177. 2 Ibid. p. 217. chap, in.! the PROFANE STATUTE' 25 a.d. 1390 J any person in connection with the Provisors, and against the Prelate ' for executing the same.' In view of all which one feels that, if the Prelates were determined to stand or fall by ' the Pope's authority,' they were certainly plainly told what in the long-run they might expect ! Towards the end of the same year, another Parliament was held in which two statutes were enacted, both of which let in a strong light upon the spirit in which the Court of Rome was abusing every concession that had been heretofore obtained. The first of these is known as the Profane Statute, which shows how it stung the Clergy to the quick, and is to this effect : — ' That no ecclesiastical person should be capable to take and possess any bequest of manors, glebes, houses, lands, or any other rents or possessions, without a special licence from the King and the capital lords thereof.'1 It had become the custom, both to avoid the expense of a licence and also to evade the Statute of Mortmain, for donors to make over such bequests to lay persons whom they could trust, and for the Church by this dodge to enjoy the full benefits thereof, without charge, and in spite of the law. But the 'Profane Statute' declared all property so held without a licence, according to the aforesaid Statute of Mortmain, to be on and after Michaelmas next absolutely 'forfeited to the King and the said capital lords ; and they might enter upon, seize, and possess the same for ever.' 2 It is to the fearless and judicial days of Edward I. that we owe the above Statute of Mortmain. Hume says, that he was the first of all Christian princes who dared to grapple with the phenomenal greed of the Church and Court of Rome ; and by this law ' he pre vented the Clergy from making new acquisitions of lands, which, by their own ecclesiastical canons, they were for ever prohibited from alienating.' s 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 218. 2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 218. 3 Hume, ch. xiii. p. 275. 26 STATUTE OF APPROPRIATIONS [book I. La.d. 1390 The other enactment by the Parliament of 1 390 was also called forth by the exactions of Churchmen, and is entitled the Statute of Appropriations. A miserable custom had been allowed to creep in of 'appropriating' the whole endow ments of a parish to some religious house or other, on condition that the Abbot or Prior took care to have the cure supplied by his own monks or friars. And thus the revenues of hundreds of benefices were finding their way to the heads of these houses, and through them to the exchequer at Rome ; while, as the Commons complained, ' charity and hospitality were wanting in those parishes, churches and rectories were becoming dilapidated, and the cure of souls was shamefully neglected.' The aforesaid statute, to remedy these evils, enacted : — ' That in every licence to be made here after in Chancery for the appropriation of any church, the Bishop of the diocese shall have power to reserve a con venient sum of money out of the fruits and profits thereof, to sustain the poor parishioners of the said church, and to endow a perpetual Vicar sufficiently to supply the cure of souls.' x No comment that we could offer upon these extraordinary laws would be half so damaging as the bare and indisputable fact, that the Church and the Court of Rome had so abused their opportunities as to make it necessary to propose and possible to carry such statutes of ' restraint' The unresting and unyielding spirit of Rome, how ever, shows itself in the very next Parliament, 1392. Thomas Arundel, then of York, but afterwards of Canterbury, being Chancellor, had gained such influence over the King that he got his sanction to declare, that one main 'cause' which they were summoned to consider was, ' in regard to the Statute of Provisors, that the Holy Father might no longer be deprived of what belonged to him.' And the Commons so far yielded as to grant, ' that the King,' with advice of his 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 218. chap, in.] A PROTESTATION AGAINST THE POPE 27 a.d. 1393 I Lords, might make such alteration touching the statute as to him seemed good, till the next meeting of Parliament; pro vided the statute might not be repealed in any article, nor none disturbed in his lawful possession.' 1 But they went so far with a very bad grace indeed, and only under the spirited protest, ' that as their assent to this was indeed a novelty they prayed that it might be no example.' Yet the very next year a similar request was made, ' for avoiding any disputes between the Pope, his King, and his realm;' and the Lords and Commons granted to the King the same 'dispensing power with reference to the Statute of Provisors' as the last Parliament had done. Thus, inch by inch, the Papacy sought to undermine and break down the strongest bulwarks built by the Parliament against its claims, which no concession short of absolute supremacy could ever finally satisfy. To the same Parliament of 1393 belongs another memor able event. It was a protestation against the Pope, made by William Courtney, Archbishop and Primate, in open Parliament and entered upon the rolls : — ' That the Pope ought not to excommunicate any Bishop, or meddle as to presentations to any ecclesiastical dignity recorded in the King's Courts ; and that the said Holy Father ought not to make translations to any Bishopric within this realm without the King's leave — for that this practice tended to the de struction of the Realm and Crown of England, which had always been free, and subject to no earthly power but to God only as to regalities, and to no other.'2 The independence of the King's Courts, the supremacy of the King's laws over all persons and causes, yea, the sovereignty and freedom of the kingdom itself, — these are the issues at stake ; and Courtney lays fair claim to be one of the first of English Protestants. Henry of Lancaster, having secured the renunciation and 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 219. 2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 220. 28 DE COMBURENDO HERETICO [B00K r- Ia.d. 1401 deposition of poor Richard II., grasped the reins of power as Henry IV. in 1399; and Fox declares that he has the bad distinction of being ' the first of all English Kings that began the burning of Christ's saints.' This refers to a twofold deed of persecution connected with his Parliament of 1401 ; first, there is a writ in the records issued to the Sheriffs of London, 'for the burning of William Sawtre, a Clerk, convicted by the Clergy of heresy, and by them adjudged to be burnt ;' and, secondly, there was a statute passed, ' touching the imprisoning or punishing with death such as held erroneous opinions in religion.' But Sir Robert Cotton declares, regarding this Act De Comburendo Heretico, that 'the printed copy differs vastly from the records not only in form but in matter, and that in order to maintain the ecclesiastical tyranny.' The claim to ' apprehend and punish heretics, in the repealed statute of 1382, had now deepened and blackened into the claim 'to burn heretics to death' in the actual statute of 1401. And Henry IV. of England and Thomas Arundel of Canterbury did between them, though with almost antagonistic aims in view, manage to constrain the Parliament to place that dreadful and shameful enactment amongst our public laws. Enough for us to say at present, in the words of Master Prynne the publisher : ' This was the first statute and butcherly knife that the impeaching Prelates procured or had against the " Poor Preachers " of Christ's gospel.' 1 They were now armed to carry on their work of murder by process of law ! And yet, as if to demonstrate the conflicting motives that raged in the hearts of the combatants throughout this long- drawn triangular duel, betwixt King and Pope and Parlia ment, this very same year the Statute of Provisors was re-enacted and re-enforced in the following terms : — ' That no Provision should be brought from Rome by any ' religious person,' to exempt them from obedience to the secular power, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 288. chap, hi.] STATUTE OF PRAEMUNIRE 29 A.D. I405 J and that all such persons, who shall bring such Provisions into the nation shall incur a Praemunire! We take note that the Statute of Provisors, as it travels on through the years, has to add to its clauses, and grapple freshly with fresh encroachments of the Court of Rome upon the supremacy of the secular power within this realm. And we have again to record our indebtedness to the reign of Edward I., one of the greatest law-making ages in the history of our country, for that strong breakwater against the Pope's encroachment upon their rights and liberties known as the Statute of Praemunire. The first words of the Act are ' Praemunire facias ; ' and it specifies a number of 1 offences which are of the nature of contempt against the Sovereign and his Government, and which are declared to be henceforth punishable with forfeiture and banishment'1 And amongst these was the brazen and persistent effort to set aside and override the decision of every Court in this kingdom by Bulls and Letters and Presentations from the Court of Rome. Hence the threat of Praemunire that bristles in so many of our Parliamentary records through all these centuries.2 A somewhat brisk encounter occurred in a Parliament held at Coventry in 1405, which reveals the temper of the times, and that the tether of concessions to the Papacy had nearly run to its utmost length. King Henry sorely needed a subsidy to prosecute his war in France, and the Commons, while agreeing to their share, put Sir William Sturmey their Speaker at their head, and waited upon the King in a body to submit the following remonstrance : — ' That without burthening the people, he might supply his occasions by seizing on the revenues of the Clergy.' They urged that the clergy ' possessed a third part of the riches of 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 288. 2 Stubbs, in his Constitutional History, regards the 16 Richard n. cap. v. (1392) as the most important of all the Statutes of Praemunire and Provisors. 20 THE REVENUES OF THE CLERGY [book i. LA.D. I405 the realm,' that they did not render the King ' any personal service,' that their wealth made them ' negligent of their duty,' and that the lessening of their excessive incomes would be a double advantage, both to Church and State.' The Arch bishops, being present, protested warmly that ' the stripping of the Clergy would put a stop to the prayers of the Church, night and day, for the welfare of the State.' The Speaker, with a twinkle of mockery, retorted 'that he thought the prayers of the Church a very slender supply ' for the King's necessities ! The Archbishop, falling on his knees, implored the King to beware of the most ' heinous ' of all crimes — the invasion of the ' Church's patrimony ; ' and the King, foreseeing a storm, wheeled round to the Church's side, protesting that he ' had sworn on mounting the throne to support the Church with all his power, and hoped by God's assistance to leave her better than he found her.' Thereon, the Archbishop, summoning courage, attacked the Commons roundly, declar ing that ' they and the like of them had extorted or begged from the King's predecessors ' all that had been seized from the Church, so that ' he is not half a mark the richer ; ' and protesting that ' if the King, which God forbid, should fulfil their wicked purpose, he would not, for the same reason, be one farthing the richer at the end of the year ! ' And then he wound up with a grand flourish, that ' he would sooner have his head cut off than consent to the Church's being deprived of the least of her rights.' The Commons, snubbed and silenced, yet went back to their own House and pushed through their ' Bill to seize the Revenues of the Clergy ; ' though, as might be anticipated, it was rejected by the Lords.1 Immediately we are face to face with the results of this concession, — the Church's demand for another and still another of her claims to be granted. In the Parliament of 1406, 'the Clergy suborned Henry, Prince of Wales, for and 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 295-6. chap, hi.] the LONG AND BLOODY BILL 31 A.D. I406 1 in name of the Lords, and Sir John Tibetot, Speaker, for and in name of the Commons,' says Sir Robert Cotton, 'to exhibit a long and bloody bill against certain men called Lollards, namely, against those that preached or taught anything against the temporal possessions of the Clergy. Wherein note a most unlawful and monstrous tyranny ; for the request of the said bill was that every officer, or other Minister whatsoever, might inquire after or apprehend such Lollards, without any other commission, and that no sanctuary should protect them.' 1 This ' Long and Bloody Bill against the Lollards ' again comes to our notice in the Parliament of 1410, when the Commons, now largely impregnated with the teachings of Wycliffe, petitioned that the late severe Act should be relaxed to this extent at least : — ' That all such persons as should be arrested by force of the statute made against Lollardy may be bailed and freely purge themselves of it; that they be arrested by no others than the Sheriffs or such like officers, and that no havock be made of their goods.' But if the Commons were really ashamed of their own handiwork, the King, now breathing a keener spirit of persecution than ever, rebuked them sharply, and made the following blood thirsty reply : — ' As for the Lollards, far from permitting the statute to be repealed, he wished it more rigorous for the utter extirpation of heresy out of the land.' Nor did the Commons fare more successfully in this Parliament, when they renewed their attack upon the revenues of the Clergy. In their petition to the King, they set forth, that the Clergy made ' an ill use of their riches,' that their revenues were 'excessive,' — that, besides leaving ample endowments for 15,000 priests (at the rate for each of seven marks per annum), sufficient temporal possessions could easily be appropriated, ' now disordinately wasted ' by the men of the Church, ' to provide for 15 Earls, 1500 Knights, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 302. 32 AN EARLY REFORMER AND MARTYR [book i. Ia.d. 1412 6200 esquires, and 100 almshouses,' and that thereby 'the kingdom's safety would be better provided for, the poor better maintained, and the Clergy more attached to their duty.' The King, either afraid to provoke the Church or genuinely attached to its interests, refused the petition almost scorn fully, declaring that he ' neither could nor would consent to it,' and expressly ' forbidding the Commons to meddle any further with the Church's concerns.' And, as if to add insult to rebuke, he not only refused their other and smaller bill, enacting ' that Clerics, when convicted, might be put into the King's prisons,' otherwise they 'frequently escaped the punishment they deserved,'1 — but he proceeded to sign, in wanton defiance, the warrant for the burning of a heretic named Thomas Bradby, then lying under the Church's sentence. The promoter of these petitions and bills was Sir John Oldcastle, better known as Lord Cobham, an enlightened Reformer before the Reformation ; who, thereby incurring the hatred of the Qergy, was sacrificed to their demands within eleven years after these events — the first peer in England that died for the cause of religion. To the very end of this Henry's reign, the same spirit of concession to the Church prevailed ; though one of the last Acts of his last Parliament in 1412 reveals to us how strangely the King and the Clergy sometimes agreed to defy the Pope, whom they 'devoutly' served. The Archbishop submitted ' a long instrument in Latin,' setting forth that in the days of Richard II. the University of Oxford 'had purchased a Papal Bull' to be exempt from his visitation, 'to the end that they might better support heretics and Lollards ; ' that the said King Richard ' took order that the University should still be subject to his visitation ' in spite of the Bull ; that he nevertheless had been ' disturbed and opposed ' in the said 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 310-n. chap. ii. ] BELLS AND BAUBLES 33 a.d. 1412J visitation by the present Chancellor Richard Courtney, and by the proctors, Bennet, Brett and John Birch ; and that the King in Chancery had decreed that the whole University and all its orders 'should be fully subject to the visitation of the said Archbishop and his officers, under the penalty of heavy fines and the seizure of all their liberties.'1 Parliament at once gave its assent to all these articles and orders, afraid apparently that the University might be thirled too closely to Rome ; and so we have the unwonted spectacle of an Archbishop inciting King and Parliament to trample underfoot a Papal Bull. ' Our princes,' remarks Sir Richard Cotton, ' were nothing subject to the Pope's Supremacy ; otherwise this Archbishop, the Pope's adopted and foster son, would not have so slighted the Pope's Bulls, which he plainly took for bells and baubles.' 2 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 313. 2 Ibid. p. 314. VOL. I. CHAPTER IV THE CRAFT IN DANGER A.D. I413 — 1488 HENRY V, who as Prince of Wales had taken a leading part, side by side with the Clergy, in pro moting 'the Long and Bloody Bill against the Lollards' already referred to, no sooner found himself on the throne in 141 3, than he had to safeguard the Supremacy of his Crown, and sternly restrict the concessions previously granted to the Court of Rome. In his first Parliament, it was enacted that all the statutes made against Provisors from Rome should now be ' strictly enforced.' And in the preamble to this deed, the famous statute in the reign of Edward III. is rehearsed, and de scribed as an ' Act for maintaining the right of the English Kings to confer ecclesiastical preferments and benefices ; ' as also the reinforcing and conforming Acts in the reigns of Richard 11. and Henry iv., 'forbidding all persons to accept any vacant bishopric or other Church benefices from the Popes of Rome, or from any other than the King, under Penalty of banishment, and forfeiture of lands and goods to the Crown! Nay, he took even more direct and practical action still, in response to an explicit petition from the Commons to clear the nation of all Priors who were aliens. It was strongly represented that the law made in the reign of Richard II., 'for bidding any alien Frenchmen to have or enjoy any benefice chap. iv. 1 THE MERCILESS STATUTE 35 A.D. I4I4J within the nation, and requiring their departure out of this kingdom within a certain specified time,' was being neglected or defeated ; and it was warmly desired that, ' when any benefices became vacant by the departure or death of the Priors aliens, or others, Englishmen should be promoted to the same.' The Commons pointed out that the statute was evaded by these aliens ' purchasing the King's letters-patent to be denizens, that they might enjoy such benefices, to the great damage of the kingdom, by carrying away its treasure, and betraying the King's counsels to his enemies.' An Act accordingly was passed 'to remedy these mis chiefs,' by the more 'strict execution of the existing laws,' and by sweeping off ' all Priors aliens, excepting only these who were conventual, and those who had legal institution and induction ;' who were to be excepted ' only on condition that they be Catholic, and that they find surety not to disclose the secrets of the realm.' x Over all these Parliamentary transactions we see the play of many conflicting motives, — the Pope exacting more and more, the King, jealous of his supremacy, and the Parlia ment guarding the liberty and independence of the nation. But we delightedly see how the great problem, in which we here are more directly interested, is thus steadily moving forward towards an inevitable and happy solution. The swaying of Parliaments and Kings, at one time against the Pope and the Clergy, at another against the Lollards and Reformers, reflects very interestingly the changing moods of the nation itself, plastic under the mighty and contrary forces that were now tearing it asunder. For instance, the Parliament that met at Leicester in 1414 blazed out fiercely first against the Lollards and then against the Clergy. It was enacted, under the influence of the priests, that the followers of Wycliffe should be treated as heretics, traitors, and outlaws. The ' Merciless Statute ' 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 320, 323. 36 THE PEER-EVANGELIST [book I. J La.d. 1414 runs to this effect : — ' That whoever read the Scriptures in English, which was then called Wyclijfe's learning, should forfeit land, cattle, goods, and life ; and be condemned as heretics to God, enemies to the Crown, and traitors to the kingdom ; that they should not have the benefit of any sanctuary (though this was a privilege then granted to the worst of malefactors) ; and that if they continued obstinate or relapsed after pardon, they should first be hanged for treason against the King and then burned for heresy against God.'1 The late Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Arundel, ' by the help of twelve inquisitors,' had drawn up no less than two hundred and forty-six ' Articles against the Principles and Doctrines of the Lollards ; ' and Convocation had resolved that, in order to extirpate Wycliffe-ism, ' certain great men, its abettors and maintainers, must first be taken off.' Doubt less they aimed at Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, who had fallen into ill favour with the King by taking part with the insurgent Lollards in and about London ; and the above abominable statute was intended to compass his destruction, though it was not till three years later, 18th. December, AD. 1417, that they managed to have this Peer-Evangelist not only hanged for treason, but also burned for heresy. But no sooner had the Clergy secured this great innings on the side of the Pope, than the very same Parliament turned suddenly round and attacked the revenues of the Clergy, insisting upon almost everything which the Lollards and Reformers demanded. A storm, which had been long brewing, darkened to black and ominous issues. The Commons brought up a bill, reminding the King that ' four years had elapsed' since Parliament had resolved that the ' lands and possessions of the Clergy ought to be converted to the service of the State.' The Convocation was wildly agitated. ' This bill,' says Hall, ' made the fat abbots to sweat, the proud priors to foam, the poor priors to curse, the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 324. chap. iv. ] THE GLORIES OF WAR 37 A.D. I422 J silly nuns to weep, and indeed all her merchants to fear that Babel would down !' But a statesman of wit and policy then occupied the See of Canterbury, and lifted up a lightning-rod which diverted the storm from their heads, and let it spend its force elsewhere. Brushing aside the petty suggestion of fixing the King to their interest by offering him ' a vast money- bribe,' he better gauged the spirit of Henry by dangling before his eyes the Crown of France. After great debate, led by the Primate, Henry Chicheley, the young King was dazzled with the glorious prize. War was declared. Henry v. won for himself and the arms of England renown of the highest that can be obtained on fields of battle. Harfleur and Agincourt set the nation's blood on fire. The Clergy gave the largest ' subsidies ' that ever in all history they had been known to contribute in aid of any King. They also surrendered, to the revenues of the Crown, 'all the alien Priories ' in the kingdom, numbering not less than one hundred and ten.1 Nothing could more forcibly illustrate their genuine alarm. Their policy was, however, completely successful for the time. It baffled the Lollard reformers. It thirled the King to the Church. They fed him with money for his wars. And Henry died, A.D. 1422, at the early age of thirty-four, covered with military and kingly glory. The see-saw of politics is strikingly manifested in an event which characterised the early reign of his son Harry Sixth. The Protectorship during his infancy had encouraged such a reviving of Papal Claims that even the Commons seemed completely carried away. Accordingly, in 1429, a petition was presented by them, joined in by the Lords, that Henry Beaufort, Cardinal-Bishop of Winchester, and great- uncle to the King, ' would vouchsafe to be made one of the King's council,' from which his high estate and dignity exempted him, under a protestation that the ' said Cardinal 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 325-329. 38 THE RED ROSE AND THE WHITE I book i. La.d. 1449 should absent himself in all affairs and councils of the King, whenever the Pope or See of Rome was concerned in them.' The Cardinal 'condescended' to grant their request. And the tide ran so high in his favour that a bill was passed, ' in consideration of the great and notable services he had done to the Crown,' granting the Cardinal-Bishop ' a full pardon for whatsoever he had acted contrary to the law, and par ticularly in regard to the Statute of Praemunire!1 And all this was carried, not only with the consent of the Commons, but at their urgent desire. The same spirit seems to have largely prevailed through out the much embroiled years that followed, when the Houses of York and Lancaster, the Red Rose and the White, were tearing each other to pieces. For we find that in the Parliament of 1449 a deliberate attempt was made to blot the Praemunire Statute out of existence. 'The Bishops made a strong push to have the Act repealed. They had made considerable interest in both Houses to effect this design. But the greater part of the Lords and Commons were so zealous for the continuance thereof, that the attempt had to be abandoned.' 2 Probably they began to see that this is what comes from patting Cardinals on the back. They had allowed them selves to be led so far on to the ice ; but when they heard it beginning thus to creak and rend under the tread of Papal feet, they saw that their 'Ancient Liberties' were again at stake, and sturdily refused to advance. Here, as everywhere, from the beginning to the end of our history, each concession is made the stepping-stone towards further claims. It cannot be otherwise, so long as supremacy, and that alone, is the goal. The next reign which claims our attention, that of the avaricious Henry vii., 1485- 1509, need only for a moment detain us. His Life and Times have been portrayed by 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 361. 2 Ibid. p. 385. CHAP. IV A.D. I48S j THE PARING OF PRIVILEGES 39 the famous pen of Lord Bacon ; and to him we owe the following pregnant announcement : — ' The King began also then, in 1488, as well in wisdom as in justice, to pare a little the privilege of Clergy. He ordained, " that clerks (= clerics) convicted should be burnt in the hand, both because they might taste of some corporal punishment, and that they might carry a brand of infamy." But, for this good act's sake the King himself was after branded, by Perkins' pro clamation, for an execrable breaker of the rights of Holy- Church.' 1 The Clergy would stand no such paring of their privileges. They had placed themselves under other laws than those of England's Kings and Parliaments. And, as yet, they re garded themselves and their Pope as having a good chance of victory at last in the long drawn struggle for the supremacy. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 457. CHAPTER V HENRY VIII. AND THE PAPACY — THE TUG OF WAR A.D. 1509— 1547 THE long reign of Henry VIII., 1 509-1 547, falls practically into two periods of nineteen years each ; in the former of which he was the Champion of Popery against all comers, against Luther among the rest, under the title still worn by our sovereigns, ' Defender of the Faith ; ' but in the latter, he waged an implacable war against every claim of supremacy from the Popes or the Court of Rome, while he managed to get himself crowned and throned as, to all intents and purposes, the Pope of England. Nothing could be more sobering and more instructive in many ways than the cold and dry light that is thrown upon that age of mighty passions and mighty changes by the Parliamentary records to which we shall now introduce our readers. In the Parliament, held at Blackfriars, London, in 1523, the great personality of Cardinal Wolsey, Archbishop of York and Lord Chancellor of the Kingdom, comes sailing into view. He had met with a little opposition even in Convocation of the Clergy, though succeeding at length in getting them to tax themselves for a royal subsidy to the unwonted figure of ' one-half of all their revenues spiritual, to be paid in the five years following.' He feared still stronger opposition from the Commons, and proposed to go thither himself and give his reasons for demanding such a subsidy. The House was ' riled ' at this ' new way ; ' some chap. v. ] WOLSEY INVADING THE COMMONS 41 A.D. 1523 1 moved not to admit him at all ; and others, if at all, ' with a few followers only and not with his whole train.' But the advice of the Speaker, the politic Sir Thomas More, at last prevailed ; and so, ' my Lord Cardinal ' was received ' with all his pomp, with his maces, his pillars, his pole-axes, his cross, " hatte " and the Great Seal too.' In a long and eloquent oration Wolsey explained why their King had no other course than to join with Charles the Emperor in a war against the King of France, the charge whereof was estimated at ^800,000, and 'required that they would raise that sum out of the fifth part of every man's goods and lands to be paid within the next four years.' A painful pause of ' silence ' in the House thereon ensued. Every member held his peace. And on Wolsey demanding 'an explanation,' the Speaker, in what reads now much more like burlesque than reality, ' fell with much reverence upon his knees ; excused their silence, abashed at the sight of so noble a personage, who was able to amaze the wisest and most learned men of the realm.' He managed, however, pretty plainly to inform the Cardinal that 'his manner of coming thither was neither expedient nor agreeable to the ancient liberties of their House,' and indi cated the necessity for a free debate of all their thoughts, in order ' that he might give His Grace a sufficient answer.' J The Cardinal had made a grievous blunder ; and matters were not improved by his rising, greatly displeased at these words, and leaving the House ' in a rage.' And so, the very next year, when, under the pressure of wars both in Scotland and France, an order was issued that the subsidy, payable in ' four ' years, should be ' anticipated ' and brought to the King in one entire payment, county after county ' rose in arms ' against the collectors, and the country was filled with the ' weepings and cursing of the people.' The whole blame was heaped upon the Cardinal's head ; but he, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 485. 42 THE CARDINAL'S FALL [b°°k i. ^ Ia.d. 1528 ' being now rendered by his Church dignities almost an English Pope,' held scornfully aloof and treated all menaces with contempt.1 But when, at last, in 1526, commissioners were sent out, all together ' without any consent of Parliament,' to collect for subsidy 'a sixth part of every layman's goods, and a fourth part of the Clergy's,' the storm burst so loud and fierce that the King adroitly ' disavowed ' the whole trans action, and declared by letters ' that he would ask nothing from his loving people but by way of benevolence.' The Cardinal by this means ' got many a curse, and the King as many blessings.' We need scarcely be astonished that in less than two years, the great Ecclesiastic had begun to fall from his lofty pedestal. Henry was then, in 1528, thick in the plot for the Divorce of Queen Catherine. Wolsey had so far failed, in these scheming days, that the Queen and her rival Anne Boleyn and the King himself all regarded him as an enemy. He was first of all 'indicted' in the Court of King's Bench, and found guilty under the Statute of Richard II. concerning Praemunire ; and sentence was pronounced, ' that he was out of the King's protection, his lands, and goods, and chattels forfeit, and that his person might be seized on.' He was ' tried,' a second time, by a great Council collected ad hoc in the Star-Chamber, and fared no better there. And finally, the King, measuring the great ness of the issues involved, ' remitted ' the whole case to the Parliament, called to sit at Westminster on 3rd Nov. 1529. 2 The Impeachment of Cardinal Wolsey was the great opening event of this Parliament, which was prorogued from time to time, but not dissolved till 4th April, A.D. 1536. In our present inquiry, that Impeachment need not have detained us for more than a moment, were it not that there is no State document of the time that more glaringly 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 490. - Ibid. p. 491. chap. v. 1 IMPEACHMENT OF WOLSEY 43 a.d. 1529 J ^J reveals the thoughts that were in the minds of men regard ing the Papal Supremacy and the abettors of its claims. By no other process than by a study of these 'Articles,' forty-four in number, can we come so clearly to see how the way had been unwittingly prepared by Rome herself for the Reformation that ensued. The words of Sir Thomas More, now Lord Chancellor, at the opening ' Oration,' were ominous for the fallen Wolsey. Comparing the King to the Good Shepard, who * separates the sound sheep from the rotten and faulty,' he proceeded thus : — ' So the great wether, which is of late fallen, as you all know, juggled with the King so craftily, scabbedly, and untruly, that he must have imagined that the King had no sense to perceive his crafty doings, or presumed that he would not see or understand his fraudulent jugglings.' The Articles of Impeachment were drawn up by the Lords, submitted to the King, and sent down to the Commons for their ' approbation.' Every one of them is dyed through and through with the very life-blood of that central question, towards which all other conflicts of the time were inevitably converging the struggle for the supremacy. The Preamble sets forth how the ' Lord Cardinal of York,' presuming to take upon him 'the authority of the Pope's Legate' de latere, hath misused, altered, and subverted ' the King's laws, to the ' damage ' of the subjects of every degree, and the hindrance and decay of 'the universal wealth of the realm.' In the particulars that follow are set forth ' but a few ' of his ' enormities, excesses, and transgressions against the King's laws.' Article I. asserts the independent sovereignty of the King and his Kingdom, and is the basis on which all the rest are reared : — ' Whereas, your Grace and your noble progenitors within this realm . . . being Kings of England, have been so free that they have had in all the world no other Sovereign but immediately subject to Almighty God 44 ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT [book. i. 1a. d. 1529 in all things, touching the regality of your Crown of England ; and the same pre-eminence, prerogative . . . your Grace and your noble progenitors, have had, used, and enjoyed without interruption ... by the space of two hundred years and more ; whereby your Grace may prescribe against the Pope's Holiness, that he should not, nor ought to, send or make any Legate, to execute any authority Legantine, contrary to your Grace's prerogative within this your realm : — Now, the Lord Cardinal of York, being your subject and natural liege born, hath of his high, orgillous, and unsatiable mind, . . . to the great imblemishment and hurt of your said Royal juris diction and prerogative . . . obtained authority Legantine, by reason whereof he hath not only hurt your said prescrip tion, but also . . . spoiled and taken away from many houses of religion in this your realm much substance of their goods, and also hath usurped upon all your ordinaries . . . much part of their jurisdiction, in derogation of your prerogative, and to the great hurt of the said Ordinaries, Prelates, and Religious.' In Article IV. the Cardinal's 'presumptuous mind' is charged with having spoken of the King as ' his fellow, in letters and instructions sent abroad, using such words as, — 'the King and I.' In Article VII. he is declared 'to have given, by his authority Legantine, by " prevention," the benefices of certain persons, as well spiritual as temporal, contrary to the dignity of the Crown and the statutes thereagainst provided.' According to Article XVII. the Cardinal, 'by his authority Legantine, used, if any spiritual men having riches or substance ' died, to seize their goods ' as his own,' so that their wills remained ' unperformed,' and executors were ' afraid to meddle.' According to Article XVIII. he ' constrained all ordin aries in England to compound with him' yearly, under threat of ' usurping half or whole of their jurisdiction ; ' and chap. v. 1 THE CARDINAL'S ' HATTE ' 45 a.d. 1529 J there was ' never a poor Archdeacon in England, but that paid yearly to him a portion of his living.' Article XXVIII. declares: — 'When the said Lord Cardinal did first sue unto your Grace to have your assent to be "Legatus de latere!' ne promised and solemnly pro tested, before your Majesty and before the Lords both spiritual and temporal, that he would nothing do nor attempt by virtue of his Legatcy, that should be contrary to your gracious prerogative or regality, or to the damage or prejudice of the jurisdiction of any ordinary, and that by his Legatcy no man should be hurt or offended ; and upon that condition and no other he was admitted by your Grace to be Legate within this your realm, — -which condition he has broken, as is well known to all your subjects ; and when that he made this promise, he was busy in his suit at Rome to "visit" all the clergy of England, both exempt and non-exempt' In Article XXXVIII. he is declared to have imprisoned Sir John Stanley for a year in the Fleet, till he ' compelled the said Sir John to release the Convent seal for his farm,' under the Abbot of Chester, 'to one Leghe of Adlington, which married one Lark's daughter, — which woman the said Lord Cardinal kept, and had with her two children.' Article XL. continues thus: — 'The said Lord Cardinal of his further pompous and presumptuous mind, hath enterprised to join and imprint the Cardinal's hat under your arms, in your coin of groats, made at your city of York, — which like deed hath not been seen to have been done by any subject within your realm before this time.' And Article XLIV. winds up the long Impeachment in these words : — ' Finally, for as much as by the foresaid Articles is evidently declared, that the Lord Cardinal, by his outrageous pride, hath greatly shadowed . . . your Grace's honour; . . . and by his insatiable avarice and ravenous appetite to have riches . . . without measure, hath so grievously oppressed your poor subjects, with so manifold 46 DEATH OF WOLSEY [book i. Ia.d. 1530 crafts of bribery and extortion ; . . . and also by his cruelty, iniquity, affection, and partiality, hath subverted the due course and order of your Grace's laws, to the undoing of a great number of your loving people : — Please it your Royal Majesty, therefore ... to set such order and direction upon the said Lord Cardinal, as may be to the terrible example of others, to beware so to offend your Grace and your laws hereafter.' x By the splendid management of his own secretary, Thomas Cromwell, then a member of the House, the Commons acquitted the Cardinal of the main charge of ' treason ; ' but the King still treated him as an enemy, and next year caused him to be arrested at his own Castle of Cawood, and carried to London for another trial. On the way, at Leicester, a ' higher summons ' was delivered to him to appear before a greater Tribunal ; and he died, 28th Nov. 1530, with these pathetic and now classic words on his lips : — ' If I had served my God with half the zeal that I have served my King, he would not in my grey hairs have thus forsaken me.' Through this great window, so highly coloured with the life-blood of the times, we see what was uppermost in the heart of the nation. The Parliament, that dared so to strike at the Pope's Supremacy through the person of Wolsey, was not averse to question or even resent Papal jurisdiction on other lines. The doctrines of Luther now began to be canvassed ' with much approbation ; ' and, says Lord Herbert, even ' the most ignorant began to inquire and examine,' whether such errors did belong to the Church or not ; and ' that alone, as it was the first step, so it was a great and bold sally,' towards the Reformation that was rapidly approaching. The first question tackled by Parliament was the apparently unending reform of the abuses of the Clergy. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 492-501. chap. v. "1 FISHER'S DEFENCE OF THE CLERGY 47 a.d. 1530 J ^' Loud complaints daily reached the King. The Commons were enjoined to devise some ' redress.' They immediately sent up bills, 'for regulating such exorbitances' as the Clergy's ' exactions for probate ; ' also ' pluralities,' and ' non- residence ; ' and ' against priests that were farmers of lands, tanners, wool-buyers, etc' The Bishop of Rochester, John Fisher, made an on slaught on them and their proposals in the House of Lords that has become historical. ' Here,' said he, ' are bills against the Clergy. . . . But ought not clergymen alone to rectify the abuses of the Clergy ? . . . I hear there is a motion that the small Monasteries be given up into the King's hands, which makes me fear that it is not so much the good as the goods of the Church that is looked after. . . . To what tendeth these portentous and curious petitions from the Commons ? To bring the Clergy in contempt with the Laity, that they may seize their patrimony ! . . . Re member Germany and Bohemia. . . . Beware of Lutheran- isms and novelties. . . . Let your neighbours' houses that are now on fire teach us to beware of disasters. . . . Search into the true causes of these mischiefs . . . and you shall find that they all arise through want of faith.' The Duke of Norfolk tartly replied : — ' Many of these words might have been well spared ; but I wist it is often seen that the greatest clerks (=clerics) are not always the wisest men.' To which the Bishop keenly retorted : — ' I do not remember any fools in my time, that ever proved great clerks ! ' x But the Commons, hearing rumour of Fisher's words, sent their Speaker along with a deputation to the King, complaining bitterly that they had been described as a pack of ' infidels or heretics.' And the Bishop, being questioned by the King thereanent, answered that ' being in Parliament he considered himself in conscience bound to speak his mind 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 502'. 48 GREAT SPEECH ON LIBERTY [book I. ^ La.d. 1530 freely in defence of the Church, which he saw daily injured and oppressed by the common people, whose office it was,' he added haughtily, 'not to judge of her manners, much less to reform them.' The King contented himself with the advice ' to use his words more temperately another time ; ' but the Commons could not so easily digest the insult, and gave free rein to one of their number to deliver in response a great speech in defence of ' their liberty of private judgment'1 He protested that, since not only the Bishop of Rochester, but so many others, ' now conspicuous in the whole world,' labour . . . ' to make us resign our faith to a simple obedience,' he would crave leave to propose what he thought fit in such a case ' for us laics and secular persons to do.' He then proceeded : — ' And because each man is created by God a free citizen of the world, and obliged to nothing so much as the inquiry of these means by which he may attain his everlasting happiness, it will be fit to examine to whose tuition and conduct he commits himself. . . . Shall each man, without more examination, believe his priests, in what religion soever, and call their doctrine his faith ? . . . Must he take all that each priest upon pretence of inspiration would teach him, because it might be so ? Or, may he leave all, because it might be otherwise ? Certainly, to embrace all religions, according to* their various and repugnant rites, tenets, traditions, and faiths, is impossible. . . . On the other side, to reject all religions indifferently is as impious ; ... so that there is a necessity to distinguish. . . . Neither shall he fly thus to particular reason, which may soon lead him to heresy ; but, after a due separation of the more doubtful and controverted parts, shall hold himself to common, authentic, and universal truths. ... It will be worth the labour, assuredly, to inquire how far these universal notions will guide us, before we commit ourselves to any of 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 503. chap. v. 1 A TENTATIVE REFORMATION 49 a.d. 1530 J their abstruse and scholastic mysteries, or supernatural and private revelations.' 'These, therefore, as universal and undoubted truths, should in my opinion,' continued the Speaker, ' be first re ceived ; they will at least keep us from impiety and atheism, and together lay a foundation for God's service and the hope of a better life. . . . That will dispose us to a general concord and peace ; for, when we are agreed concerning these eternal causes and means of our salvation, why should we so much differ for the rest ? . . . The common truths of religion, being firmer bonds of unity than that anything emergent out of traditions should dissolve them, — let us establish and fix these catholic or universal notions ... so that whether my Lord Bishop of Rochester, Luther, Zwinglius, Erasmus, or Melanchthon, etc., be in the right, we laics may so build upon these catholic and infallible grounds of religion, as whatsoever structure of faith be raised, these foundations yet may support them.' 1 The name of this bold and philosophic speaker has not been handed down to us. But we deem it wise to place his main line of thought on record, in juxtaposition to the words of the Bishop of Rochester. The essential spirit and the abiding claims of the Papacy breathe through the one. The life of the new age, and the distinctive claims of the Re formation, throb through the heart of the other ; and make his words stir our pulses still, as a prelude to the later and grander music of civil and religious freedom. Immediately on the back of this episode, a Tentative Reformation was set on foot. But mark its careful limita tions : — Religion was to be reformed, ' so far as was consistent with the established laws of the kingdom.' So small and wary were the beginnings of reform, for 'the Chancellors were always Bishops, and had the sole rule about the King.' But an Act was passed to settle the fees , for ' probats ' and 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 506. VOL. I. D co letter to the pope r B00K '¦ J L a.d. 1530 ' mortuaries,' and to ' abridge spiritual persons from taking farms, and from pluralities of livings, and from non-residence,' except under certain specified and stringent conditions. And above all, when the King's debts were generously wiped off, and a ' free pardon ' was proclaimed to all his subjects in honour of the occasion, the Clergy were expressly excepted with reference to ' their transgressions against the Statute of Praemunire.' These, trenching upon the supremacy of the King and the independence of his government, were specified amongst certain other 'capital' offences, for which there could be no forgiveness.1 And now one feels almost ashamed to admit the his torical facts that environed the remainder of the struggle for the supremacy in this age ; and that indeed were the im mediate occasion of driving things to a final issue. It is impossible to get up any enthusiasm for the character of Henry VIII. ; and especially it would be unworthy of us to gloss over the base and hypocritical pretences under which he married and divorced his many wives. Still, beyond all fair question, his brutal determination to secure a divorce from Catherine, which the Pope declined or inconveniently delayed, raised the inquiry into and discussion of those principles that led inevitably to the final crash. Doubtless, also, the time was ripe, and Henry's temper and the temper of the nation were at one. The whole matter is launched upon us by a most extra ordinary Letter from the Parliament to the Pope ; in which, as if borne along by the rising stream of national life, the Lords spiritual, or most of them, joined with the Lords temporal and the Commons, not apparently seeing whither it would carry them. They respectfully salute 'the most blessed Father,' comment upon ' the unseasonable delay of sentence ' in regard to the marriage of their invincible King, remind him of the unanimous verdict of 'our own two 1 Hansard's P.H. vol. i. p. 507. chap. v. ] pope CLEMENT'S ALARM c i a.d. 1530 J •> Universities, as well as that of Paris, and almost all men of learning and integrity ' both at home and abroad, and then flatly declare, — ' But if your Holiness . . . shall, by refusing to comply herein, esteem us as castaways, and resolve to leave us orphans, we can make no other construction of it, but that the care of ourselves is committed to our own hands, and that we are left to seek our remedy elsewhere. . . . We do again and again beseech you, for our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, whose Vicar on Earth you style yourself . . conform your actions to that title, ... by giving your sanction to that truth, which has been examined, approved, and con firmed by the most learned men of all nations . . . that, having by your Holiness's authority a confirmation of what is just and righteous and true, we may therein rest satisfied, and be free from the trouble of seeking to attain this end by other means.' 1 Besides the Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Barons, Knights, and Doctors in Parliament, no less than twenty-three Abbots, four Bishops, and the two Archbishops signed their names to this fiery declaration, politely yet very forcibly challenging the Court of Rome to deadly combat. The answer from Pope Clement VII., dated 27th Sep tember 1530, while their letter was only signed on 13th July preceding, bears manifest traces of alarm and anxiety. His ' venerable brothers and beloved sons ' are commended for ' the great duty and tender affection which they bear to our most dear son in Christ your King.' They are informed that, 'since the Commission of Appeal to the Apostolical Tribunal ' was granted, ' no lawful Proctor has appeared on the King's part to set forth his Majesty's pretensions ; ' and they are very positively assured that the Pope ' will give no hinder or delay to the decision of this cause,' being 'earnestly desirous to free your King and Queen, and our own selves from this most troublesome affair.' 2 But the fatal rift was widening every day ; and we cannot trace any effect 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 507-510. 2 Ibid. pp. 510-514. 52 KING HENRY'S DIVORCE I book i. D L A.D. 1531 which this Papal brief had either in healing the breach, or softening the rising passion of the Parliament and the King. On the 30th March 1531, the next Parliamentary step was taken, being a still more forcible driving of the wedge into the very heart of the claim of Papal Supremacy. The Lord Chancellor, accompanied by twelve other temporal and spiritual Lords, appeared before the Commons and said : — ' You of this worshipful House, I am sure you be not so ignorant but you know well that the King, our Sovereign Lord, hath married his brother's wife ; for she was both wedded and bedded with his brother, Prince Arthur.' And then he explained how the King 'like a virtuous Prince,' willing to be satisfied in his conscience had submitted to the leading Universities and most famous scholars of Europe the following question : — ' Whether the Pope's dispensation, for a brother marrying his brother's wife, after consummation with her former husband, was valid or not ? ' Sir Bryan Tuke then ' took twelve sealed writings out of a boxe,' and read them before the House, ' translated into the English tongue,' containing the 'judgments' not only of Cambridge and Oxford, but of the Universities in France, Italy, Venice, and the Pope's own dominions, — all giving a direct negative in answer to the question as proposed. And to confirm these, 'above a hundred books' by foreign civilians and divines were also produced and laid upon the table of the House. The Commons were urged to report in their several counties what they had seen and heard, ' in order that all men might openly perceive, that the King hath not attempted this matter of will or pleasure, as some strangers report, but only for the discharge of his conscience and surety of the succession to his realm.' x Certainly, they would have a hard enough job in persuading their counties that Henry's motives were pure and disinterested. But, be his motives as before God what they may, this was the process, and these are the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 515. chap. v. i 'BUT HALF-SUBJECTS' 53 a.d. 1532 J JJ main facts by which all concessions to Popery heretofore were being slowly but surely undermined, and the claim of Papal Supremacy was about to be broken in pieces. The very next year, 1532, the Commons held long debate on a complaint against the Clergy, and at last presented their grievances in writing to the King. They declared ' that men were called before the Ordinary, ex officio, and charged with heresy without their accusers being produced ; ' that ' those so cited must either abjure or be burned ; ' and that ' the Laity were sore laid on by the cruel demeanour of the Prelates, who spared neither their bodies nor their goods.' The King received their ' schedule of grievances,' and replied that 'his office was that of a judge,' that he would not therefore be ' too easy of belief,' and that he must ' hear the party accused ' before he gave sentence. Thus step by step, the King and the Parliament move onward, almost unwittingly, partly driven by circumstances partly forcing their way, towards the final step of separation from the Papal jurisdiction and submission to the Royal Supremacy. And so, next year again, 1533, we find the King sending for the Speaker of the Commons, and submitting to him the Clergy's answer to the aforesaid complaints ; and, in ex pressing his own dissatisfaction with the same, Henry added these suggestive words : — ' That the Clergy of the realm were but his half -subjects, or scarce so much; that every Bishop or Abbot, at the entering into his dignity, took an oath to the Pope, derogatory to that of their fidelity to the King ; and that he desired his Parliament to consider this contra diction, and take it away.' 1 These two oaths were immediately read and considered in the House ; and the handling of this theme led, in less than two years thereafter, to the complete renunciation of all Papal authority. 1 Hansard's P. H vol. i. p. 519. 54 THE ACT OF SUPREMACY [ B00K '¦ 1 a.d. 1535 During this same year, also, the much-debated Divorce was completed in the following manner. Catherine had indeed been openly repudiated already, and Anne Boleyn had been secretly married. But State reasons made it necessary that she should, owing to her now ' conspicuous ' condition, be officially acknowledged and crowned without delay. Catherine, failing on citation to appear before Cranmer and the other delegates at Dunstable, was de clared to be contumacious, and sentence was pronounced against her of absolute separation ' a mensa et thoro ' for ever. And Anne was crowned Queen of England, 'with all the usual ceremonies.' x It is just three years since the threat of that letter to the Pope, that the King and his Parliament would ' seek their remedy elsewhere,' if his Holiness did not satisfy them. They have thus sought it, and found it, in the jurisdiction of their own Courts ; and the sentence that cut off Queen Catherine was, indirectly, the first axe-blow that struck fatally the tree of Papal Supremacy. If the Pope could be defied, or ignored, in this, why not in everything else ? Accordingly, in the Parliament of 1535, we come upon the famous Act of Supremacy. The preamble persuasively represents that, ' Albeit the King was the supreme head of the Church in England, and so recognised by the Clergy of this realm in their Convocations, yet for more corroboration thereof, as also for extirpating all errors, heresies, and abuses of the same,' this new statute was passed. It was enacted ' that the King, his heirs and successors, Kings of England, should be accepted and reputed the supreme head on earth of the Church of England, called Ecclesia Anglicana.' The 'Imperial Crown of this realm was to have and enjoy all honours, . . . jurisdictions, . . . and profits, ... to the said supreme head belonging or ap pertaining ; . . . also full power and authority to visit . - . 1 Hansard's P. II. vol. i. p. 519. chap. v. ] THE LESSER MONASTERIES 5 5 a.d. 1536 J JJ reform, . . . and amend . . . whatsoever . . . may by any manner of spiritual jurisdiction or authority be reformed . . . ordered ... or amended ; . . . any usage, custom, foreign laws, foreign authority, prescription, or any thing or things to the contrary hereof, notwithstanding.' 1 All which one ponders over, especially in the light of other Reformations, conducted under the guidance of God's Holy Word ; and we feel that this English movement is something altogether unique. Despite that Act, the Church of England was still Catholic after the type of Rome ; it was still Popish, but with this modification, — that King Henry was now the Pope. We find this same Reforming Parliament called together again in the following year, 1536 ; and in this its last session it was almost exclusively occupied with a new problem, that grew by-and-bye to vaster proportions — ' How to deal with the Monasteries.' The King and his counsellors had been gathering full information, 'both by visitors and in other credible ways ; ' and, as will be seen from the words soon to be quoted as used by the Bishop of London, they were quite prepared for the speedy overthrow of the whole monastic system. But, meantime, they contented themselves with a smaller tentative measure, the 'Suppression of the Lesser Monas teries.' The preamble sets forth: — 'That small religious houses, under the number of twelve persons, had been long and notoriously given to vicious and abominable practices, . . . and that for about two hundred years there had been many visitations for reforming these abuses, but with no success, their vicious living daily increasing ; so that, unless the small houses were dissolved and the religious put. into greater Monasteries, there could be no Reformation. The full report regarding these smaller Monasteries being read in Parliament ' represented their manners so odiously,' 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 524. 56 AUGMENTATION OF REVENUE T B00K !- L A.D. 1536 that a bill for their total suppression was easily and unani mously carried. It was therefore enacted : — ' That all such houses, which might spend yearly £200 or within it, should be suppressed, their revenues converted to better uses, and they compelled to reform their lives.' x This reforming pro cess was supposed to take place by their getting located amongst the 'diverse great Monasteries, in which religion was well kept and observed.' Regarding them too, however, Henry and his counsellors will soon find it convenient to change that good opinion ! The converting of their revenues ' to better uses ' seems to have awakened little difference of judgment. A ' Court of Augmentation of the King's revenue ' was instituted, whose simple function was to appropriate ' all their Church's lands, and other goods,' and hand over the proceeds ' to the King, his heirs, and successors for ever.' Thus fell the Lesser Monasteries to the number of about 376, turning adrift about 10,000 monks and nuns, and con veniently putting into the King's Exchequer an annual revenue of about ^32,000. And so universal was the evil odour in which they were now held that their extinction was thus commented upon even by Stokesley, the Bishop of London, in the House of Lords : — ' These lesser Houses were as thorns, soon plucked up ; but the great Abbeys were like putrified old oaks ; yet they must needs follow, as others would do in Christendom, before many years were passed.'2 A new Parliament was at length summoned to meet at Westminster on 8th June 1537. Henry was again ram paging among his many wives, and was apparently sorely perplexed about Acts of Succession, no sooner made than requiring to be repealed. Poor Anne Boleyn had been beheaded on 19th May 1536; and the Lady Jane Seymour had succeeded to the perilous honour, ' according to the laws 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 526. 2 Ibid. p. 527. chap. v. "| ABOLITION OF PAPAL JURISDICTION 57 of the Church ;' and ' there is hope that she may conceive by his Highness.' In fact, Henry found it easier to clear a wife off the scene than to abolish his own many ' Acts of Succession;' and Hansard groans under pages of hypo critical logic. A little frank brutality in law-breaking and statute-cancelling, as well as in beheading of wives, would be more wholesome than his sacrilegious appeals to con science and to God in vindication of one after another of these abominable transactions. We turn, however, to our own theme, and find this Parliament, like the preceding, full of mighty issues. The Court of Rome made one last appeal for a reconciliation. Queen Catherine was dead ; Anne had been swept away by the axe ; and the Pope, judging that as these occasions of the rupture had been removed the King would now. be amenable, sent the . following message of peace : — ' That he had ever favoured his cause in his own predecessor's time ; and, though he was forced to give out a sentence against him, yet he had never any intention to proceed upon it to further extremities.' 1 Henry and his counsellors seem to have gloated over this message as a confession of weakness, and answered it by ostentatiously hurrying through Parliament one of the most far-reaching and vital measures ever submitted to these Houses, viz., the utter abolition of the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome. It was brought into the House of Lords on 4th July, and immediately passed all stages in both Houses, and was enacted into a law. The preamble is full of scarcely suppressed scorn. It speaks of ' the Bishop of Rome, whom some call the Pope, who had long darkened God's Word, that it might serve his pomp, glory, avarice, ambition, and tyranny, both upon the souls and bodies and goods of all Christians ; ex cluding Christ out of the rule of men's souls, and princes 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 533. 58 GREAT SEAL versus PAPAL BULLS [" eook I. L a.d. 1537 out of their dominions ; and had exacted in England great sums by dreams, vanities, and other superstitious ways.' After which stinging preface, it proceeds to declare : — ' Upon these reasons, his usurpations had been by law put down in this nation ; yet many of his emissaries had been practising up and down the kingdom, and persuading people to acknowledge his pretended authority.' And then came the specific enactment : — ' Therefore, every person so offend ing after the last day of July next to come shall incur the pains of a Praemunire ; and all officers, both civil and ecclesiastical, are commanded to make inquiry about such offences, under severest penalties.'1 Another Act, necessary to the legal carrying out of the above and for the launching of the new social order, was also passed, coloured through and through with similar hues of con tempt. It set forth that ' the Popes had, during their usurpa tion, granted many immunities to several bodies and societies in England, which upon such grants had been now long in use.' It declared that now ' all those Bulls, breves, and everything depending on or flowing from them, were void and of no force;' excepting only 'marriages celebrated by virtue of them and not otherwise contrary to the law of God, and all consecrations of Bishops by virtue of the same,' which were declared to be 'good in law,' and were accordingly 'con firmed.' And then it enacted: — 'That all who enjoyed any privilege by Bulls were to bring them into Chancery, or to such persons as the King should appoint for that end ; and that the Archbishop of Canterbury is empowered to grant anew the effects contained in them — that grant to pass under the Great Seal, and to be alone of full force in law.'2 The Parliament which passed these great constitutional Acts sat only six weeks, and was dissolved on 18th July by King Henry, ' who was now,' says Bishop Burnet, ' absolute 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 533. 2 Ibid. p. 533. chap. v. ] CAJOLING THE ABBOTS AND PRIORS 59 master both of the affections and the fears of his sub jects.' During nearly three years that intervened before another Parliament was summoned, Henry seems to have made diligent use of this absolute mastership, especially in one direction. The King and his courtiers alike, having tasted blood in the overthrow of the lesser religious houses, began to smack their lips over the vast revenues of the greater Monasteries and Abbeys. Thomas Cromwell, ' the black smith's son,' formerly secretary to Wolsey, had now by great learning and great ability risen to be Prime Minister in his old master's place ; and the King lent a ready ear to his golden — or, at least, gold-bringing — proposals. A few remonstrances were, indeed, heard, that some Monasteries might be spared, ' as well for the virtue of the persons in them, as that the country received great benefit from them ; the poor receiving thence relief, and the richer sort education for their children.' But Cromwell, with the King at his back, ' invaded ' them all. He made the most lavish use of ' threats, gifts, persuasions, promises, or what ever else might make men waver.' And, skilful in the art of political hypocrisy, like his royal master, he made the pre posterous declaration that he ' had obtained the consent of the Abbots, Priors, Abbesses, etc., that their houses might be given up !' 1 Bold and tyrannical, however, as Henry had shown him self to be, he felt that no indefeasible right to these possessions could be obtained without consent of Parliament ; and so, having stolen all the eggs out of the nest, he stayed his hand waiting for an opportunity to shoot and pluck the bird itself. The Parliament met at Westminster on 28th April 1540 — the first writ of summons being addressed to Thomas, Lord Cromwell, 'our Vicar General in Spiritualities,' —rather an imposing title for our old friend ' the blacksmith's son.' And 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 535. 60 THE GREATER MONASTERIES T B00K J- L a.d. 1540 it is further memorable as the last Parliament of England in which the Abbots, to the number of twenty, sat side by side with the Bishops and other Lords in the House of Peers. The great business was launched upon them, May 13th, in a bill for the total suppression of Monasteries, Abbeys, etc. It is described as concerning ' the establishment to the King's Majesty, his heirs and successors, of all manner of Abbeys, priories, monasteries, etc., which had come into the King's hands by reason of the suppression, reduction, and final dissolution of them in the twenty-seventh year of his reign ; ' and, at first glance, it seems but a confirmation of the fore going Acts against lesser houses. But when, after adjourning over Ascension Day, the bill came to be closely studied, ' on the following Friday at eight o'clock in the morning ' (their usual hour of meeting in those heroic days), its sweep was seen to be vast and revolutionary. It enacted that ' leases of manors belonging to Monasteries dissolved, or to be dissolved, and assured to the King, shall take effect ; and that the King shall hold, possess, and enjoy, to him and his heirs and successors for ever, all Monasteries and Abbacies, priories, nunneries, colleger, hospitals, houses of friars, and other religious and ecclesiastical houses and places, which . . . have been dissolved, suppressed, renounced, forfeited, or given up, or by any other means come to his Highness, or which shall be dissolved, suppressed, etc., etc., as also all manors, lands, rights, liberties, etc., belonging unto them ; . . . other men's titles yet saved.'1 Thus fell, almost without a finger being raised in their defence, 645 Monasteries, of which 27 sat in the House of Lords as 'mitred Abbots ;' also 90 Colleges, no Hospitals, and 2374 Chantries and free chapels ; representing in all a yearly income of £163,000, being 'above a third part of all the spiritual revenues of the kingdom.' To this must be added the almost incredible value of their cattle and corn, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 537. chap. v. 1 THE POPE OF ENGLAND 6 1 A.D. 154O J timber and lead, bells and ornaments, and above all their plate and jewels, ' of which divers rich inventories are still extant' Lord Herbert declares that ' Henry's rapine upon the Church astonished the whole Christian world.' And indeed, we cannot but wish that cleaner hands and purer motives had carried through this bit of necessary work ; but we must not fail to balance that reflection with this other, — that what was thus torn down with violence and scattered without pity had been built up by impious frauds and gathered together without mercy by a sacrilegious traffic in bodies and souls of men. Concessions to Popery long-drawn through many cen turies, and ever rising in the merciless exorbitance of further demands, were thus cancelled in a single day, and blotted out of existence by one stroke of Retribution's avenging pen. This same Parliament had on the 5th May appointed, at the King's request, a special ' Committee on Religion.' They were informed that it was 'his Majesty's desire, above all thing, that the diversities of opinions concerning the Chris tian religion, in this kingdom, should be with all possible expedition plucked up and extirpated.'1 Vicar-General Cromwell, the two Archbishops, and five Bishops, formed this precious committee ; and Henry was quite prepared to prove that while he and they might repudiate the Pope of Rome, no soul within his realm should be allowed to repudiate the King who was Pope of England ! On the 1 6th May, it was reported from the Committee that they could make no progress, * because they were not in one mind among themselves ; ' and it was thought that certain crucial articles should be put to the whole Parliament and freely debated there, in order that they might arrive at some unity of opinion, which, thereafter, they might enforce by penal statutes upon all. The Articles are six in num ber, and bear upon these questions :— Transubstantiation, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 536. 62 THE SIX ARTICLES [book i. La.d. 1540 Communion in one Kind, Vows of Chastity, Private Masses, Celibacy of Priests, and Auricular Confession. On 30th May, after a prorogation, we are informed by the Lord Chancellor, ' that not only the Peers, but even the King's Majesty had laboured incessantly and taken great pains to bring about union and had at last completed it' And, by Henry's express desire, Parliament was enjoined to enact some penal statute, ' to compel all his subjects, who were any way dissenters or contradictors,'1 to obey these Articles. Canterbury with two Bishops and a doctor formed one sub-committee ; and York, with two Bishops and a doctor formed the other. They reported their deliberations to the King within two days, that is, on the Sunday follow ing ; and as the result, the Lord Chancellor on the 7th June laid upon the table of Parliament what is known ever since as the Bloody Bill. By the 16th June it passed both Houses, and it demands our study as the most authentic exponent of the actual relationship of Henry and his counsellors both to the older Romanism and to the rising Protestantism. The bill declares, in terms of the Six Articles referred to : — (1) That if any person ... do preach, teach, dispute, or hold opinion, that in the blessed Sacrament of the Altar . . . there is not present really the natural body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ ... he shall be adjudged an heretic, and suffer death by burning, and shall forfeit to the King all . . . as in the case of high treason : — (2) If any person preach ... or teach ... or obstinately affirm or defend, that the Communion of the blessed Sacrament in both kinds is necessary ... or ought to be received by any person other than priests : — (3) Or that any man, after the Order of Priesthood received, may marry, or contract matrimony : — (4) Or that any man or woman which advisedly hath vowed or professed . . . chastity or widowhood, may 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 538. chap. v. ] COMMITTEES ON RELIGION 63 a.d. 1541 J J marry or contract marriage : — (5) Or that Private Masses be not lawful, or not laudable, or should not be used, or be not agreeable to the laws of God : — (6) Or that Auricular Con fession is not expedient, and necessary to be used in the Church of God : — he shall be adjudged to suffer death and forfeit lands and goods as a felon.'1 Cranmer, now of Canterbury, argued fiercely over this bill, standing up against it for three days together ; but the Annalists whisper that he was galled by the third Article, ' as he had married a wife in Germany seven years before.' Other divines and lawyers also denounced it, 'as not only against truth, but against common justice.' And it was only carried 'by the personal influence of the King himself,' according to Strype. Amidst all the horrors and butcheries which such an Act rendered possible, and even probable, grave-faced History her self cannot refrain from grinning, when she sees Henry of the many wives straining the very constitution and existence of his Parliament to compel priests and others to keep their vows of chastity, on pain of a felon's death. O King, live for ever! But what would your chances be, if you lived in times when the law for the subject was law for the Sovereign too ? In January 1541, at another session of this same Parlia ment, 'the Vicar-General in Spirituals' made a wonderful flourish of trumpets over the appointment of certain ' Com mittees on Religious Affairs.' ' Thomas, Dominus Cromwell,' Knight of the Garter, etc., etc., expatiated on the King's love of 'concord,' but regretted 'the tares' that grew up amongst the corn, and the many ' contentions and quarrels amongst those which would otherwise be pious Christians,' some 'calling the others Papists (=first appearance of distinctive name), whilst those again term them HERETICS, both wicked in their kind, and not to be endured.' And so much the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 539. 64 CROMWELL S FALL [ book i. L A.D. 154I less ought these things to be, ' by reason of the Holy Word of God, which His Most Serene Highness, out of his benign ity, had suffered to be published in books for the safety and comfort of his people ; that they might read, in their native language, how much that most holy gift of God had been miserably abused and perverted.' Therefore his Majesty's anxiety is ' that all errors may be rooted out to make room for the true religion,' especially for all 'well-polished set forms of the Holy Gospel's true doctrine ; ' and that all ' pious ceremonies and customs may be separated from the wicked,' their real uses taught and their abuses rectified. Hence, that Christ and the Word of Truth may conquer all errors . . . 'his Majesty hath chosen certain Bishops and doctors that will sincerely inform us what belongs to the institution of a Christian man ; ' and others, ' to examine into rites and ceremonies, and to expound their differences and their reasonableness.'1 The Lords, carried away by Cromwell's fervour, wrought themselves into a dreadfully pious mood, and set apart every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for the promotion of this ' great business ; ' yea, the afternoons also of the other days were offered ' for the promotion of this holy and pious study and design.' That was on the 12th April, A.D. 1541 ; and on the 28th July, same year, Thomas, Lord Cromwell, having, been attainted of high treason and condemned unheard only a few days before, was being led to the Tower Hill to be executed. One wonders what he thought then of his flatteries of ' the illustrious monarch, as a most Christian prince, neither wavering to the right nor to the left, but guiding and direct ing his steps and judgment by the pure Word of God and an Evangelistical sincerity?' O Cromwell, Cromwell, 'mounted from a low beginning to the summit of glory,' thou art ' but another terrible instance along with thy master, 1 Hansard's P H. vol. i. pp. 542, 543. chap. v. "I JUMBLE OF POPERY AND PROTESTANTISM 65 A.D. 1543 J Wolsey, how slippery is the footing of those who depend on the smiles of princes ! n We next find, 1543, that Cranmer and his friends are struggling hard to promote the Reformation, despite many conflicting currents both in the Houses, and even in their own souls, — Popish errors still trying to throttle Gospel doctrines. What an incredible jumble, for instance, meets us in the ' Act for the Advancement of the True Religion and Abolishment of the Contrary.' Cranmer's hand shaped it ; but it was ' clogged with many provisoes ' by his enemies. In view of ' the abuses ' arising from the liberty granted of read ing the Bible, and the ' animosities, tumults, and schisms ' thereby created, it is enacted : — ' that a form of orthodox doctrine, consonant to the inspired writings and the doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, shall be set forth as a standard of belief ; ' that ' Tyndale's false translations of the Old and New Testament, and all other books touching on religion in the English tongue, contrary to the Articles of Faith . . . published in 1540, or any time after, shall be suppressed, and forbidden to be read in the King's domin ions ; ' that ' all books, impugning the Holy Sacrament of the Altar ... be .prohibited under forfeitures and fines ; ' and, finally, ' that the reading of the Bible be likewise pro hibited to all under the degrees of gentlemen and gentle women.'2 Proviso and persecution seem to wrestle in this statute for the mastery. There is a proviso, for instance, making it ' lawful for all persons whatsoever to read or teach all such doctrine as is or shall be set forth by his Majesty since the year of our Lord 1 540 ; and also the Psalter, Primer, Pater noster, Ave, and Creed in English.' And then the club-foot of old Popish persecution strikes out in the immediately succeeding clause : — ' But if any spiritual person shall preach or maintain anything contrary to the doctrines above 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 545. 2 Ibid. p. 557. VOL. I. E 66 THE KING'S LAST SPEECH Tbooki.La.d. 1546 mentioned, he shall recant for the first offence, abjure for his second and bear a fagot, and for a further relapse shall be adjudged a heretic, suffer the pains of burning, and forfeit all his goods and chattels.'1 The new wine is being poured into old wine-skins, and there will be a terrible upbursting some day soon ! Henry's last appearance before his Parliament was on Christmas Eve, 1546, and was rendered memorable by a most extraordinary prorogation speech. He thanks them for their ' loving admonition and good counsel ; ' for their ' perfect trust and confidence ' in him . . . , and assures them that their ' expectation shall be served more godly and goodly than they could wish or desire.' ' Yet . . I must heartily require you ... to study and take pains to amend one thing which most surely is amiss. . . . Behold, then, what love and charity is among you, when the one calleth the other Heretic and Anabaptist, and he calleth him again Papist, Hypocrite, and Pharisee ! ' Then, turning upon the Bishops, he pointedly exclaimed, ' I must needs judge the fault ... to be partly by negli gence of you, the fathers and preachers of the spirituality. ... I see here, daily, that you of the Clergy preach one against another. . . . Some be too stiff in their old mump- simus ! Others be too busy and curious in their new sump simus ! ... I am very sorry to know and hear how unreverendly that most precious jewel, the Word of God, is disputed, rhymed, sung, and jangled in every ale-house and tavern. . . . ' 2 • On January 28, 1547, Henry fell on sleep, having reigned strongly, if not always wisely, for eight-and-thirty years. His Reforming endeavours were from first to last suspiciously associated with his personal lusts, and with the enrichment of the royal exchequer. The last words he uttered to his Parliament were steeped in Popery and hot 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 557. 2 Ibid. pp. 562-564. chap. v. "I HENRY'S CROWN OF GLORY 67 a.d. 1547 -I - ' with the breath of persecution. But, beyond all question, and despite every deduction, it was this Henry who broke in pieces the Papal Supremacy, and severed England from all subjection to the See or Court of Rome. That crown of glory is his, whatever his motives may have been. CHAPTER VI THE GOOD KING EDWARD AND THE BLOODY MARY a.d. 1547— 1559 A REACTION, in this special case, was bound to follow. The vast revolutionary changes of Henry's days had been forced to a head by the violent domination of a single will, rather than by the enlightened conscience of a whole nation. Still there was enough of force in the national impulses to carry the tide of reform steadily onward for a period, though not enough to prevent one of the most fierce reactions from ensuing in due course that our his tory has ever witnessed. The tide, rolled shorewards by the strong personality of Henry vill., continued to flow during the days of the boy King Edward VI. (1547-1553) ; and then rolled back with a mighty ebb towards the ocean of Popish superstition and tyranny, during the equal period of the reign of Mary (1553-5$). Edward, the son of Lady Jane Seymour, being but a child of nine years at the death of his father, the actual government of the kingdom passed into the hands of his maternal uncle, Edward Seymour, created Duke of Somerset and Lord Protector of the Realms. His zeal for the Reformation was altogether political, like that of Henry himself, and he was ready to strike almost equally against Romish and against Protestant dissent. Leaving general affairs to other pens, we proceed to show how the concessions, made in former ages to Popery, were still further conditioned or cancelled ; and, indirectly, chap. vi. "] THE PURITANS AND THE NEW POPERY 60 A.D. 1547 J how the same spirit, which had wrested and abused these con cessions from the State, still poisoned the hearts of men, and propagated a sort of new Popery under Protestant auspices. For instance, one of the first things that meets us in the first Parliament of Edward, 1547, is a bill relating to the Sacrament of the Altar. It appears that some, who began to be called Puritans, had been treating ' irreverently ' that sacred mystery. The preamble lashes out upon them as 'having disputed and reasoned unreverendly and ungodly of that most holy mystery, and called it by such vile and unseemly words that Christian ears did abhor.' These were such as ' Round Robin,' referring to the shape of the wafer ; and 'Jack in the box,' because the consecrated Host was preserved in a pix, or golden chest. And then the Act, blowing hot and cold by turns, proceeded to attack another superstition, using almost as strong language as the Puritans themselves, — enjoining ' the said Holy Sacrament to be de livered and ministered to the people in both kinds of bread and wine,' because that was ' more conformable to the common use and practice of the Apostles and the Primitive Church, by the space of five hundred years and more after Christ's Ascension.' 1 The very same month we come across another Act, showing how almost exclusively political were the forces at work in shaping the English Reformation. It was passed to provide for the admission of Bishops by the King's authority alone, and was, perhaps, the logical outcome of the investing of the Sovereign with all the ecclesiastical jurisdiction formerly claimed by the Pope. It declared that ' the way of choosing Bishops by congi d'elire was tedious and expensive, that there was after all only a shadow of election in it, and that therefore Bishops should hereafter be made by the King's letters-patent, upon which they were to be consecrated.' It further declared and enacted that 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 582. 70 CHANTRIES AND COLLEGES [ book I. ' L A. D. 1 547 • whereas the Bishops did exercise their authority, and carry on processes in their own names, as they were wont to do in the time of Popery ; and that, since all jurisdiction, both spiritual and temporal, was derived from the King, there fore, their Courts, and all processes, should henceforth be carried on in the King's name, and sealed by the King's seal ; ' excepting certain specified ' collations, etc.,' which were to pass ' under the Bishops' proper seals as formerly.'1 It is manifest at a glance, that the retort would be freely made, to which Bishop Burnet refers — that whereas before Bishops were creatures of the Court of Rome, now they had become creatures of the Court of England. But, even on that level, must we not contend that the country had made a happy change ? In the last month of this same year, another statute was enacted for ' Suppressing Chauntries and Colleges.' One is almost surprised that, after the sweep of Henry's besom of destruction, anything of the kind is found surviving in the land. Its purport was, however, 'to put into the actual possession of the King certain Colleges, Chantries, free chapels, fraternities, guilds, etc., with all their lands and goods.' In these latter words, we have perhaps the true key to the transaction. The goods and lands ' were sold at a low value, enriching many and ennobling some ; ' and thereby, as Sir John Hayward cynically observes, they were ' made firm ' in maintaining the Reformation.2 And finally, before the year closed, the following re markable Repeal of Statutes was passed into law, viz., nearly all those clauses in the Acts against treason and felony, which prohibited 'liberty of conscience, and free dom to read and expound the Holy Scriptures.' Dr. Heylin declares that men were now 'at liberty to entertain what opinion in religion best agreed with their fancies, and to promulgate whatsoever they entertained.' He over-estimates 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 583. 2 Ibid. p. 584. chap. vi. "I FIRST BOOK OF SERVICE 7 1 A.D. 1549 J the drift of this Act, though undoubtedly it was a great step forward towards liberty of conscience. But that a long journey on that road had still to be overtaken will be manifest to every reader, when we record the lamentable fact, that 'the law for the burning of heretics stood still unrepealed, and that several perished thus even during Edward's reign.'1 The next year passes by ; and in January, 1549, we find ourselves confronted with an ' Act of Uniformity in Religion,' which is utterly Popish in its spirit and in its sanctions, though supposed to be passed in the interests of the Protestant Reformation. It refers specifically to ' the Service of Public Worship and of Administration of the Sacraments.' It complains that there have been ' several forms,' and that of late there had crept in ' great differences.' The King, by advice of the Lord Protector and his Council, in order to secure ' a uniform way over all the kingdom,' had appointed 'the Archbishop of Canterbury with other learned and discreet Bishops and divines,' to draw up' an 'Order of Divine Worship,' having respect to ' the pure religion of Christ taught in the Scripture and to the practice of the Primitive Church.' This they claim to have ' concluded upon, with one uniform agreement, by the aid of the Holy Ghost.' Whereupon, the Parliament, having duly considered this ' Book of Service,' thanked the King for ' his care about it,' prayed that all previous offenders, except those in the Tower and the Fleet prisons, should be ' pardoned,' and enacted ' that, from the Feast of Whitsunday next, all divine offices should be performed according to this Book.' Clergy who should refuse or neglect to conform would, ' for a first conviction, be imprisoned six months and forfeit a year's profit of their benefice ; for a second, forfeit all their preferments and be imprisoned for a year ; and for a third, be imprisoned during life.' Offenders of the Lay persuasion who should ' write, or 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 584. 72 PRIESTS AND MARRIAGE r book I. ' La.d. 1549 put out things in print, against the Book of Service, or threaten any clergyman for using it,' would be fined ' £10 for a first conviction, £20 for a second, and for a third, forfeit all their goods and be imprisoned for life.' Only at the Universities, they might, if they chose, use it in Latin or Greek, except the ' Office of the Communion,' which must always be in the mother tongue ! Besides, every clergyman had reserved to him the liberty to use 'other psalms or prayers taken out of the Bible,'1 provided he did not omit those that were prescribed in the Book of Service, according to law. We read, in the old Parliamentary Record, that ' some thought it too much to say that this book was drawn by the aid of the Holy Ghost' Our readers will re-echo that censure, and find in many a clause of the above Act the unexercised demon of persecuting Popery. The same reactionary and conflicting influences are even more conspicuous in the next Act which claims our attention, in February of the same year, 1549, — an 'Act for allowing Priests to marry.' The preamble is the hand of Popery, and declares, — ' It were better for priests and the ministers of the Church to live chaste and without marriage, whereby they might better attend to the ministry of the Gospel and be less distracted with secular cares.' The next paragraph is the hand of Protestantism, and declares, — ' Great filthiness of living and other inconveniences had followed on the laws that compelled chastity and prohibited marriage, so that it was better they should be suffered to marry than be so restrained ; therefore all laws and canons that had been made against it, being only made by human authority, are hereby repealed.'2 Henceforth, all spiritual persons, of what degree soever, might lawfully marry, 'provided they married according to the order of the Church.' 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 585. 2 Ibid. p. 586. chap. vi. 1 MARRIAGE OF THE CLERGY 73 A.D. 1552 J We are not surprised that, as Burnet informs us, this law was bitterly censured. We know to whose teaching we are indebted for having God's sacrament of nature, the institution of marriage, represented as a mere filthy breakwater against the tides of animal lust. Therefore, on 6th February 1552, we find an apologetic and explanatory ' Bill for the Marriage of the Clergy ' laid upon the table and immediately passed into law. It sets forth that many took occasion, 'from the words in the preceding Act,' to say that marriage was ' only permitted, as usury and other unlawful things, for the avoiding of greater evils ; ' and that such marriages were ' spoken slanderously against, and the children begotten of them were accounted bastards.' It declares that all this 'was to the high dis honour of the King and Parliament and the learned Clergy of the realm, who had determined that the laws against priests' marriages were most unlawful by the law of God, — to which they had not only given their assent in Convocation, but signed it with their own hands.' And it was conse quently enacted, — 'That such marriages, made according to the rules prescribed in the Book of Service, should be esteemed good and valid, and that the children begot in them should be inheritable according to law.' 1 In almost every Act of this reign the ' hands ' are the hands of Esau, but the ' voice ' is the voice of Jacob. For instance, A.D. 1 549, we come upon an enactment regarding ' Eating flesh in Lent.' It declares ' that it is clear, by the Word of God, there is no day, nor kind of meat, purer than another, but that all are in themselves alike.' Yet it laments 'that many, out of sensuality, had condemned such abstinence as had been formerly used,' and holds up such abstinence ' as a means of virtue, to subdue men's bodies to their soul and spirit ; ' but, true to the commercial instincts of the race, it feels no incongruity in adding that such abstinence 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 594. 74 THE SWING OF THE PENDULUM [ book i. L a.d. 1549 is ' also necessary to encourage the trade of fishing (!) and for saving of flesh.' On these weighty grounds it was enacted, after the repeal of all former laws, ' that from the ist of May none should eat flesh on Fridays, Saturdays, Ember-days, in Lent, or any other days that should be declared fish-days, under severe penalties.' But, alas ! they learn again from the enemy, and grant to the King our old Popish friend, viz., ' a dispensing power,' by excepting such as should obtain the King's 'licence,' besides the sick and weak. That bodes ill for the effect of this philanthropic statute for ' encouraging the trade of fishing ! ' 1 Take another instance from the close of the same year, 1549. It refers to the ' Enforcement of Ecclesiastical Laws.1 The Bishops united in a melancholy complaint to Parliament, ' that they were much despised by the common people, that vice and disorder much abounded, and that they durst not punish any sin, by reason that some late proclamations had almost totally deprived them of any jurisdiction.' The 'Prelates' brought in a statute on the subject, but it was rejected, as they 'seemed to arrogate too much power' to themselves. 'Prudent persons' were elected to bring in a second bill, which passed the House of Lords, but was rejected by the Commons. And, finally, a 'commission of thirty-two' was authorised to compile a body of 'ecclesi astical laws,' that these, if 'in nothing contrary to the common and statute laws of the land, should be published by the King's warrant under the Great Seal, and have the force of laws in the Ecclesiastical Courts.' 2 The swing of the pendulum is again felt, towards and away from Popery, in the proposals that are accepted almost as plainly as in those that are rejected. There are two other Acts of Edward's reign that demand a moment's attention in this inquiry. The first was passed before the prorogation of Parliament, ist February 1550, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 589. 2 Ibid. p. 591. chap. vi. "I NEW BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 75 a.d. i 552 J and aimed at the ' Defacing of Images,' etc. It ordained that 'all books, used in churches, such as missals, manuals, legends, etc., . . . after the use of Sarum, Lincoln, York, or any other private use, should be destroyed ; and all those who had any image, that did belong to any church or chapel, were required to deface it before the last day of June.' Besides, ' in all primers, in Latin or English, set out by the late King, the prayers to the Saints were all to be obliterated.' Parliamentary visitors were appointed to see this carried out in every church throughout London, and all England soon followed the same iconoclastic example. There was only one graphic exception :— ' Images upon the tomb of any king, prince, nobleman, or other dead person, not reputed a saint, might still remain.' x As a considerable number had no reputation that way, their images were safe ; and so our antiquarians have not been altogether driven mad by the defacement of all the beautiful works of art ! The other Act is characteristic of the times, and reveals how much Popery the Reformers of Edward's day had still to forget. In January 1552, the Lords passed an 'Order to attend Divine Service,' and sent it down to the Commons. In April, it appears there, tacked on to a New Book of Common Prayer, and both constitute the one Act, with which we now deal. It complains that 'many did wil fully abstain from the Order of Divine Service that had been published, and refused to come to their parish churches ; ' and ordains that ' all are required, after the feast of All-Hallows next, to come every Sunday and Holiday to common prayers, under pain of the Church's censure.' All Archbishops, Bishops, and their Ordinaries, had solemnly laid upon them by Parliament ' to endeavour the execution of this statute as they should answer before God ... for neglecting this good and wholesome law.' To remove ' doubts ' about the ministrations of the Service, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 593. 76 THE TIDE OF REACTION Tbooki.La.d. 1552 which had arisen ' rather by the curiosity of the ministers and mistakers, than of any other cause,' . . . ' it had been, by the command of the King and Parliament, perused, explained, and made more perfect' 1 And this new book, or revised edition, was 'appointed to be everywhere re ceived,' under the same dire penalties as was the first book, three years ago. The Houses were, with all their en lightenment, as united in the resolution to compel uni formity of religion, as was ever any Pope or Cardinal in other days. Thus slowly does Error change and die. Thus slowly does Truth purge itself from foul entanglements. The reaction, steadily showing itself, began in 1552 to gain in rapidity and force. The Lord Protector Somerset had fallen into a trap, laid by his personal enemies, and had been beheaded for ' felony ' on the Tower Hill of London.2 An Act had been passed through both Houses for the ' Observance of Holy Days,' setting forth that such ' set times ' were necessary, in which ' labour was to cease, that men might on those days wholly serve God ' . . . 'but that no day was to be dedicated to any Saint, only to God in remembrance of such Saints ; ' 3 and all the while, under cover of an apparent protest, re-introducing all the superstitions of the Popish calendar, with its 'eves,' and * fasts,' and ' holy days,' to be observed, upon pain of heavy ' penalties.' And when at length the consumptive boy King, still only half-way into his teens, yet universally beloved, died in July 1553, and the daughter of the divorced Catherine ascended the throne, the tide of reaction rose into billowy force and swept every barrier aside with its swift and angry waves. Thus we pass from the days of ' the Good ' King Edward to the days of ' the Bloody ' Mary. The first Parliament of Mary assembled in Westminster 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 593. 2 Ibid. p. 597. 3 Ibid. p. 595. chap. vi. "1 REPEAL OF ALL EDWARD'S LAWS 77 a.d. 1553J Church, 5th October 1553. The Queen rode thither in her robes of office, with trumpets blowing, and Bishops and Lords attending ; and — mark this ! — ' a solemn Mass of the Holy Ghost was sung according to the ancient custom.'1 That, at least, was perfectly frank. Mary has the courage of her convictions, and at all hazard avows her creed. After a short session and a brief recess, Parliament met again on October 31, and the Lords immediately sent down a bill to the Commons for the ' Repeal of all King Edward's Laws about Religion.' There it was debated for six days, and finally accepted. It set forth ' the great disorders that had arisen in the nation, by the changes that had been made in religion, from that which their forefathers had left them on the authority of the Catholic Church.' Thereupon, it enacted that ' all the laws that had been made in King Edward's time concerning religion ' should now stand ' repealed ; ' and further, it ordained ' that from 20th December next, there should be no other form of Divine Service but what had been used in the last year of Henry VIII.' 2 ' By which one blow,' says Heylin, ' was felled down all that had been done in the Reformation for seven years before.' We are back to the days of Henry, — King and Pope in one ; Popery has won, and won easily, that vast concession. Will it satisfy ? The steps of Mary are bold and uncompromising. On 25th July 1554, she is married at Winchester to Philip of Spain, perhaps the most obstinate and stiff-necked Papist then living in Europe. 'Philip and Mary, by the grace of God, King and Queen of England, France, Naples, Jerusalem, etc., etc.,'3 call the Parliament to assemble at Westminster in the following November. It is noticed that the writs do not bear the title which her first writ bore — ' Supremum Caput Ecclesiae Angliae! She had renounced 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 607. 2 Ibid. p. 610. 3 Ibid. p. 616. 78 REVERSAL OF POLE'S ATTAINDER Tbooki. La.d. 1554 that claim, in intention, if not yet in law, in favour of the Pope of Rome. Further, she sent after the writ a very strong and plausible letter, appealing to the Sheriffs 'so to deal with the people ' that the Members elected and sent up to Parlia ment should be of the ' wise and grave and Catholic sort' The King and Queen opened the Parliament with un usual display, and Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, and now Lord Chancellor of the Realm, declared by their authority that it had been called for the ' confirmation of True Religion and other weighty matters.' And the first bill that was laid on the table of the House of Lords was for the ' Repeal of the Act of Attainder against Cardinal Pole.' It was introduced on the 17th November, passed both Houses on the 2 1st, and had the Royal assent on the 226.1 So eager were Philip and Mary to open up the way for his re appearing in Parliament, since he had just arrived as Legate' from the Pope. He was thus restored by a single stroke to ' the paternal estate and dignity of which he had been deprived by attainder in the thirty-first year of the reign of Henry vill.' Accordingly, both Houses of Parlia ment were summoned to come to Whitehall, and hear the Cardinal 'open up his Legation from the Holy See.' It was a great moment, such as seldom happens in the lives of men, or even of nations ; and the Cardinal did not fail to rise to the occasion. For our own purposes, we must look in upon the scene, and understand the demands of Rome, as uttered from her own lips. The King and Queen sat under a canopy. The Cardinal occupied the place of honour at their right hand. The Bishops, Lords, and Commons were 'in attendance.' The Lord Chancellor, Bishop Gardiner of Winchester, introduced to ' my Lords of the Upper House, and you my Maysters of the Nether House,' the ' Right Reverend Father in God, my Lord Cardinal Pole, Legate a latere, come from the Apo- 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 617. chap. vi. "I THE CARDINAL'S ORATION 79 a.d. 1554 J .stolique See of Rome . . . upon one of the weightiest causes that ever happened in this realm.' And as this ' ambassade ' is to be signified to them by the Cardinal's own mouth, he hopes it will be received in a 'benevolent and thankful wise ; ' and that they will give unto him ' attentive and in clinable ears.' 1 The Cardinal made ' a long oration.' In the preface, he touched tenderly upon ' somewhat ' personal, before entering upon ' the particularities ' of his commission, protesting that, though ' exiled from his native country without just cause, nothing could pull her from his heart' He then launches out upon his commission, declaring ' that the See Apostolic hath a special respect to this realm above all others,' and proceeding to prove 'that this island was prima provinciarum which embraced the Christian religion ' ! And that the Britons 'received it from the Church of Rome,' and have ever since shown ' fervent devotion to the Holy See.' He shrinks, indeed, from rehearsing ' the manifold bene fits ' that this realm has received from the Holy Father; and he shudders at mention of the ' manifold miseries and calamities ' that the realm hath suffered from swerving from the same. But he glances with warning eye at 'the plagues ' that have overtaken Asia and Greece, and latterly Germany, for ' refusing the unity ' of the Church of Rome ; and fiercely declares, as to their own turmoils, that 'the root of all was avarice,' and that ' the lust and carnal affection of one man confounded all laws, both human and divine.' Poor old Henry might turn in his grave at that ! Pouring forth abundant flatteries upon the Queen, "a virgin, helpless, naked, and unarmed,' prevailing over tyrants, ' not by any policy of man, but by the almighty goodness of God,' the Cardinal declares that she has been promoted to reign over them ' for the restitution of the true religion and the extirpation of all errors and sects.' Then, congratu- 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 618. 80 THE DEMANDS OF ROME ["booki.La.d. 1554 lating them upon ' her marriage with a Prince of like religion,' he tells them of his conference with ' the Emperor, a man of blood and war,' who rejoiced to leave to this his son Solomon 'the building of the temple' in England — ' the reconcilement of this realm unto Christian unity.' What a lift for fanatical Philip, to be matched with Solomon ! All which being graciously poured forth, the Cardinal braces himself to tackle the issue really at stake ; and does it thus : — ' Universally, in all realms, we must adhere to one head, and acknowledge him to be the Vicar of God. . . . All power being in God . . . He hath derived that power from above into parts here on earth, . . . the Imperial and Ecclesiastical. . . . For secular Princes to whom the tem poral sword is committed be ministers of God . . . who have this power committed to them immediately from God, without any superior in that behalf. . . . The other power, which is the power of the Keys and order in the ecclesias tical state, is, by the authority of God's Word and example of the Apostles, and of all old holy Fathers from Christ hitherto, attributed and given to the Apostolic See of Rome by special prerogative. From which See I am here deputed Legate and Ambassador . . . and have the Keys committed to my hands. . . . And yet I cannot open, not for want of power in me to give, but for certain impediments in you to receive, which must be taken away.'1 Then the demand was specifically formulated, that England ' should revoke and repeal every law and statute ' that stood 'as a bar to the execution of the Cardinal's commission ! ' It was a mighty price to ask from a high-spirited nation. But the Cardinal and the Court rightly gauged the heart of this Parliament at least, however they misread or ignored the heart of the country. And so, within three days, the following unparalleled Petition and Supplication was brought 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 618-622. A, IAP. VI.~| D- I554-1 chap. vi. "I HUMILIATING SUPPLICATION up from a united Parliament to the King and Queen, to be by them presented to the Cardinal Legate : — ' We, the Lords spiritual and temporal, and the Commons, . . . offer this our most humble supplication . . . that the same may . . . be exhibited to the Most Reverend Father in God, the Lord Cardinal Pole, Legate, sent specially hither from our Most Holy Father, Pope Julius HI., and the See Apostolique of Rome ; wherein we do declare ourselves very sorry and re pentant of the long schism and disobedience, committed in the realm, and the dominions of the same . . . either by making, agreeing, or executing of any laws . . . against the primacy of the said See Apostolique, or otherwise doing or speaking that might impugn or prejudice the same ; offering ourselves, and promising by this our Supplication, that, for a token and knowledge of this our said repentance, we be and shall be ever ready to the uttermost of our power to do that shall lie in us for this abrogation and repealing of all the said laws and ordinances ... as well for ourselves, as for the whole body whom we represent.' And in closing, they beseech their Majesties, as person ages undefiled in this offence, so to set forth ' this humble suit,' that they may the rather obtain their .'absolution, release, and discharge ' from all the ' censures and sentences ' under which they have fallen, and may 'as children repentant' be received into ' the bosom and unity of Christ's Church, and into unity and perfect obedience to the See Apostolique and the Popes for the time being.'1 Poor King John's humiliation was nothing to this — King, Queen, and Parliament grovelling in the dust before the Pope's representative ! But no one seems to have blushed or wavered. It had to be gone through, apparently, and they stickle at nothing. Their Majesties, rising from their royal seats, 'did obeisance to the Cardinal, and presented the aforesaid 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 623. VOL I, F 82 PARLIAMENT ON ITS KNEES [book i. Ia.d. 1554 Petition and Supplication ' to him. Thanking God for ' this happy turn,' he presented his commission, wherein the Pope ' authorised ' him to absolve and bless them ; then all the Parliament, both Lords and Commons, went down before him 'upon their knees,' and the Cardinal pronounced over them the following absolution : — ¦' Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who by His most precious blood hath redeemed and washed us from all our sins . . . and Whom the Father hath appointed Head over all His Church, — He, by His mercy absolve you ! And we, by the Apostolique authority, given unto us by the Most Holy Lord Pope Julius III., His Vicegerent in earth, do absolve and deliver you, and every of you, with the whole realm, . . . from all heresy and schism, and from all and every judgments, censures, and paynes for that cause incurred. And also we do restore you again to the unity of the Holy Church ... In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. — Amen.'1 Whereon, the King and Queen and the Members of Parliament went into 'the King's Chapel,' and there sung Te Deum with great gladness of heart ' for this new recon ciliation ' ! And before the end of that year, the 26th December, an Act of Repeal was passed through both Houses — the Bishop of London alone dissenting — whose title sufficiently de scribes its import : — ' A Bill for repealing all Statutes, Articles, and Provisoes, made against the See Apostolique of Rome,2 since the twentieth of Henry vill., and for the establishment of all spiritual possessions and hereditaments conveyed to the Laity.' Nay, so eager were the Commons to please the Queen and the Cardinal, that the former Acts against Heresy were revived, viz., the statutes of Richard IL, Henry IV., and Henry v., whereby the fires of persecution might again be set ablazing throughout the land, — as in fact they 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 623. 2 Ibid. p. 624. chap. vi. "I THE THIRTY-SEVEN PROTESTERS 83 a.d. 1558J immediately were, raging for three years, and burning hundreds to death, from Cranmer the wavering, yet at last heroic, Archbishop, down to tender women and brave boy- martyrs, who literally ' bathed their hands in the flames,' and were robed in them as a wreath of glory in their ascent to God!1 Having carried everything that Pole and Gardiner cared to demand, the Queen came to the House, ' sceptred the Acts,' and dissolved this precious Parliament, 16th January 1555- One little circumstance alone redeems the disgraceful scene, and deserves to be recorded here. Thirty-seven mem bers of the House of Commons, whose names of honour have been handed down by Lord Coke in his Institutes, when they saw that the majority were 'determined to sacrifice every thing to the Court,' openly seceded and withdrew themselves from Parliament and from all responsibility for its transac tions. It was a deed worthy to be commemorated ; for, in those bloody times, every man of them went forth carrying his life in his hand !2 Nothing else in Mary's reign need detain us. She died, rather unexpectedly, on 17th November 1558. She had restored everything to the Papacy, ' even the Church lands, etc.,' as far as her Parliament would stand it, or would allow her to do even with ' the First Fruits, Tithes, and Impropria tions' that were vested in the Crown. As for the Lay nobility, they were very ' much startled at the noise of this restitution ; ' and some of them, clapping hand on sword, ' affirmed with many oaths that they would never part with their Abbey lands.'3 The time during which Mary ' raged rather than reigned ' does not, in some respects, deserve the attention we have bestowed upon it here ; and especially the whole of that 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 624. 2 Ibid. p. 625. 3 Ibid. p. 626. 84 OBJECT-LESSON ON PAPAL CLAIMS ["book I. ^ J La.d. 1558 Cardinal Pole and Parliament Absolution Episode! Yet we have preserved it thus, as the best full-page illustration in all our history of what actually are the demands and Claims of the Papacy, and what are the concessions which alone can satisfy Popery. These are the claims which every Pope makes, and must make, in every nation on the face of the earth. These are the concessions which must be granted, and granted in full, if that nation and Rome are ever to be at peace. Popery has often accepted less, for reasons of policy or under pressure of dire necessity. But Popery has never once in all her career rested content with less, or cancelled or repudiated her claim to absolute Supremacy. No Romanist, if honest and well-informed, will even pretend that the contrary is true. It is well, once for all, to have the whole case, with claims on one side and concessions on the other, set before us in the clear cold light of fact and law and history. Thanks to Queen Mary and Cardinal Pole and Pope Julius III. CHAPTER VII THE STATELY DAYS OF GREAT ELIZABETH a.d. 1559— 1603 WE now enter upon ' the stately days of Great Eliza beth,' 1 5 59- 1603. Indeed it was on the 17th No vember of the preceding year that the Commons were summoned to the House of Lords, and heard the Chancellor's announcement in these words : — ' God hath taken away the Queen to His mercy, but hath furnished us with another Sovereign, my Lady Elizabeth, her Grace.'1 Her Coronation, however, took place on the 15th of the following January, and during all the four-and-forty years ensuing of her reign, this extraordinary daughter of Henry VIII., and of Anne Boleyn, in whom were so strangely mixed the Tudor tyranny of her father and the wanton fascination of her mother, proved herself, if not the most amiable, yet beyond all question, in personality one of the most intensely interesting, and in capacity for government one of the strongest and wisest of all the Sovereigns that ever sat on the English throne. Leaving to general historians the portraiture of this wonderful epoch, we must strictly hold on to the clew that is threading our steps through all those mazes, and learn what were the facts and what are the lessons of that time as to making, or it may be cancelling, concessions to Popery. Elizabeth retained thirteen of Mary's Privy Councillors, ' all zealous Papists,' and added eight new ones, all equally ' attached to the Reformed Religion.' Among these latter 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 632. 86 86 THE LORD KEEPER'S ORATION ["booki.La.d. 1559 stand out the names of Francis Russell,1 Earl of Bedford, and Sir William Cecil, a man of vast capacity for State affairs, and the famous Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, and father of a still more famous son. Regarding the former list, Burnet somewhat cruelly declares that ' most of those counsellors had complied with all the changes that had been made in religion, backward and forward, since the latter end of Henry's reign, and were so dexterous at it that they were still employed in every new revolution.'2 Eliza beth, like all the Tudors, prized ' biddable ' servants. On January 25th, 1559, the Queen was present in the House of Lords, and the Lord Keeper Bacon made a great and ' polished ' oration to both Houses there assembled ; setting forth, amidst many glancing flatteries about 'the princely virtues of this noble Princess,' the three main ' matters and causes ' whereupon her first Parliament had been summoned to consult. With the ' second ' and ' third ' of these, our history is not concerned ; referring, as they do, to 'the enormities and mischiefs that hurt or hinder the civil orders and policies of this realm ; ' and ' the losses and decays that have happened of late to the Imperial Crown,' particularly the surrender of Calais, which was called ' the brightest jewel of England,' and which now left the heir of the Henrys and the Edwards without a foot of land on the continent of Europe. But the ' first cause ' to be submitted to Parliament is all-engrossing, and is vital to our inquiry. It is described as ' the well-making of laws for the according and uniting of these people of the realm into an uniform order of religion, to the honour and glory of God, the establishing of the Church, and tranquillity of the realm.' In this matter, her Highness ' willeth and earnestly requireth ' them all to 'fly all sophistical, captious, and frivolous arguments and quiddities . . . comelier for scholars than counsellors, more 1 Alias Russel. 2 Hansard's /'. //. vol. i. p. 635. chap, vii.-) RESTORATION OF ROYAL SUPREMACY 87 A.D. 1559 J beseeming for schools than for Parliament Houses.' No 'contentious, contumelious, or opprobrious words,' such as ' Heretic,' ' Schismatic,' ' Papist,' and such like names, were to be used, being ' nurses of factions and sects ; ' and ' utter enemies of all concord and unity — the very marks that you are now come to shoot at' On the one hand, nothing is to be done or advised, ' likely to breed or nourish any kind of idolatry or superstition ; ' and, on the other, no ' occasion ' was to be given ' for contempt or irreverent behaviour towards God and godly things.' x That was January 25th ; and on January 30th a bill was introduced into the House of Lords, and immediately passed all its stages and became an Act of Parliament, which at once revealed the temper of the Queen and her Ministers. It enacted the ' restitution and annexation of the First Fruits and Tenths to the Queen's Majesty and Imperial Crown of this realm.'2 Elizabeth proved herself as resolute and as unscrupulous as Henry himself, and her Parliament was equally pronounced, that 'the ill-gotten wealth' of Churchmen should be freely drained, and that without any qualms, into the national exchequer. But ' the great affair ' of this Parliament was naturally and necessarily that pertaining to the relationship of the Crown and Kingdom to the claims of supremacy lately conceded again by Mary to the Court and Pope of Rome. That underlay everything, and the decision of it would condition their decision in everything else. Con sequently we find a bill on this subject passing the House of Lords on 18th February after long discussions and several dissents, sent down to the Commons, and, after a full month's discussion there, returned on 22nd March, and on same day, as finally amended, passed into a statute. Its title sufficiently explains its contents: — 'An Act for Restoring the Supremacy to the Imperial Crown of this 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 636-642. 2 Ibid. p. 642. 88 NICHOLAS HEATH ON PAPAL CLAIMS [book I. La.d. 1559 Realm, and repealing divers Acts made to the contrary.'1 The Archbishop of York and eight other Bishops courage ously and vigorously opposed the bill, and consistently defended the claims of the Pope. The speeches of Nicholas Heath of York and Cuthbert Scott of Chester have been handed down to us, and are extremely valuable as an unquestionable and official declara tion of Papal Demands. In temporals, the Archbishop puts in as high a claim for the Queen's Supremacy as ever entered into the brain of any Tudor Absolutist : — ' What further authority, in these respects, can this House give unto her Highness than she hath already, by right and inheritance, and not by your gift, but by the appointment of God ? ' But if this Supremacy refers to spirituals, then, he declares that, ' by relinquishing and forsaking of the See of Rome, we must forsake and fly from these four things : — all General Councils, all Canonical and Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church of Christ, the judgment of all other Christian Princes, and, finally, we must forsake and fly from the unity of Christ's Church, and, by leaping out of Peter's ship, hazard ourselves to be overwhelmed and drowned in the waters of schism, sects, and divisions.' On these lines he builds up a learned and laborious speech of the usual type, leading in his judgment to the demonstration of this practical issue — that 'since the whole spiritual government of the Church was committed by Christ to the Apostles and their successors, and since a woman in the degrees of Christ's Church is not called to be an Apostle . . . neither a doctor nor preacher, — therefore she cannot be supreme head of Christ's Militant Church, nor yet of any part thereof.' 2 The other speech, by Cuthbert Scott, the Bishop of Chester, is a succinct and even brilliant defence of the Supre- 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 643. 2 Ibid. pp. 644-649. chap. vii. 1 CUTHBERT SCOTT ON THE 'KEYS' 89 a.d. 1559 J macy of the Pope as the 'successor' of St. Peter, to which it may be questioned if any controversialist of later days has added a single vital idea. ' Moved by Almighty God and by conscience,' he feels constrained 'to speak his mind,' and in doing so learnedly covers the whole field in dispute. His argument is ' that our faith and religion is main tained by no one thing so much as by unity, which unity is contained and maintained in Christ's Church, even as concord and good order is maintained in a Commonwealth.' By the analogy of the State — with its ' constables ' of villages, its ' head ' constables of ' hundreds,' its ' sheriffs ' of counties, and its ' prince ' in and under whom all are bound into one concord, — he tries to prove that, according to Holy Scripture, 'Christ is the one Pastor, who by commission hath made other pastors, and especially one to be Vicar-General upon earth, to govern and rule all his whole flock in unity and concord, and in avoidance of schisms and divisions.' He then launches into a discussion about the ' Power of the Keys,' demonstrating, at least to his own manifest satisfaction, that ' no temporal prince hath any authority in or over the Church of Christ, seeing that the Keys were never given by Christ unto any one of them.' Thereon follows the whole controversy about Peter being ' the Rock,' and having ' the Keys,' in a sense higher and other than that of the remaining Apostles ; and the Bishop resolutely grapples with almost every point of the debate so familiar amongst us down to modern days, concluding ' that there is no stay for men's wavering in the faith, except in unity and obedience under the See of Rome ; ' for ' at the present,' he declares, 'there be abroad in Christendom thirty-four sundry sects of opinions, whereof never one agreeth with another, and all alike differ from the Catholic Church ! ' Nor does he shrink from tackling the ' objections against the Supremacy of the Pope' which were abroad in his own days. And he concludes a long rejoinder to the objection 90 HEADSHIP OF THE CHURCH Tbooki. La.d. 1559 drawn ' from the wicked and evil lives of certain Popes of Rome ' with the unblushing declaration : — ' Even so, the lives of the Popes of Rome, were they never so wicked, cannot be prejudicial to the authority given to Peter and his successors by the mouth of our Saviour.' The next objection, based upon the Council of Nicsea, and the sixth Council of Carthage, and ' the departure of the Greek Church, and other realms now in our days, from the authority of the See of Rome,' he learnedly battles against, with canon after canon and council after council, — par ticularly retorting, by the way, ' As for Denmark, I do hear, indeed, they be very Lutherans, and have also renounced the Pope's authority; but yet I cannot learn or hear that either the King of Denmark, or any Prince in Germany, doth take upon him to be called the supreme head of the Church!' The last objection, alleging a ' Provincial Council in this realm of England,' by which 'the authority of the Bishop of Rome was abolished and disannulled,' he treats the most cavalierly of all, as being 'in very deed a matter of small authority or else none ; ' for, ' how can a Particular Council determine anything against the Universal Church?' and besides, ' of the learned men that were the doers there, so many as be dead were penitent before they died and cried God's mercy for that act, and those that do live have openly revoked the same, acknowledging their error!'1 Amongst all the temporal Peers, one solitary voice was raised on the same side, that of the Viscount Montague,'2 Anthony Brown, who had only a few years before gone to Rome as deputy along with the Bishop of Ely to procure ' the restoration of England to the unity of the Church and the obedience to the Apostolic See.' His personal honour was therefore touched ; or else he was not so dexterous ' in the backward and forward movement ' as some of the rest ! He declared that it would be ' disgraceful ' to make ' so . 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 650-660. 2 Alias Montecute. chap. vii. "I ORDER OF DIVINE SERVICE 91 a.d. 1559 J sudden a revolt.' He protested that ' the hazard would be as gteat as the scandal,' should ' the Pope thunder out his excommunication.' For his own part, 'by authority of Parliament and in name of the whole body of England,' he rendered ' obedience to the Pope, — the performance of which he could by no means dispense with ! ' J Despite all protests, despite all contentions as to Church authority, 'in certain Scriptural aspects,' separate and in dependent of that of the Civil government, with which all Evangelical Protestants sympathise, though they dissever it from the un-scriptural and anti-national Claim of the Papacy, this great bill passed, of course, into law. The laws, re pealed by Mary, were all, at a single stroke, renewed once more. Elizabeth, who cared little for any religion, became for political reasons ' supreme head of the Church of England.' And the 'jurisdiction' of the Pope of Rome, in every form or sense, within this realm, was absolutely cancelled and abolished, as far as that can be done by statute law. This was immediately and necessarily backed up by an Act respecting the Liturgy. Its aim was to secure 'uni formity of the Common Prayer and Service in the Church, and the Administration of Sacraments.' The order of public worship, established in Edward VI. 's time, and also of the sacraments, was re-enacted, with a few alterations, to be 'used and observed in all churches,' under certain severe penalties for ' corruption or neglect ' of the same.2 Amidst the almost exclusively political aims that ruled the Queen and her Parliament, having apparently not the faintest conception of anything approaching spiritual in dependence under any conditions, we admit a certain sense of relief in coming across two zealous Roman Catholic speeches, however perverted their ideas, on the other side. The Abbot of Westminster, Dr. Feckenham, 'the last of his order ' that ever spoke in the House of Peers, contended 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 660. 2 Ibid. p. 664. 92 THE LAST OF THE ABBOTS [book i. La.d. 1559 fearlessly for what he calls 'the ancient religion, for the space of 1400 years past here in this realm ; ' and inveighed against 'the other religion, set here in a book, and to be received and to come into authority here in this realm at Midsummer next ! ' And then he set forth and learnedly applied 'three brief rules,' whereby 'your honours shall be able to distinguish betwixt the true religion of God and the counterfeit, and never be deceived,' viz.: — (1.) 'Which of them hath been of most antiquity, and most observed in the Church of Christ, ab omnibus, semper, ubique ? (2.) Which of them is of itself more steadfast, and always-forth one and agreeable with itself? And (3.) Which of these religions doth breed the more humble and obedient subjects, first unto God, and next unto our Sovereign Lady the Queen's High ness and all superior powers ? ' * The Abbot seems not to have felt that his great speech was unwittingly a plea for the right of private judgment ; and that, the moment their 'honours' and the 'people' secured and exercised that right, the basis of Popery was overthrown and the foundation stone of the Reformation was immovably laid. Nor did the mind of Parliament, so long obfuscated by the dominance of Papal authority, retort upon him that all they wanted was just perfect freedom to apply his three brief rules, and to carry out the decisions to which they were led by that unfettered inquiry. Secondly, our learned friend Cuthbert Scott, the Bishop of Chester, once more rushed into the breach, all unconscious that the Abbot had given up the keys of the citadel, and 'lamented that such a bill should be suffered either to be read, yea, or any ear to be given unto it of Christian men, or of so honourable an assembly as this ! ' Whereon he pro ceeded, in a speech that swept the whole field of Church history and of theology, to prove, in brief, that in such matters the ' Temporality ' had no right of discussion or even 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 664-669. chap, vn.-j ELIZABETH VISITS WESTMINSTER ABBEY 93 A.D. 1562 J ^J of investigation ; but to ' leave them to be discussed and determined in all times by the Clergy only.' 1 What would my Lord Abbot think of that ? Not much room left there for their honours and the people applying his ' three brief rules ' ! But it needs no subtlety to discern which of the speakers best represents the Papal Claims. In the second Parliament of Elizabeth, which met at Westminster 12th January 1562, an event of vast constitu tional import arrests our attention for its bearings on the question of Supremacy. The Queen rode in great state from her Palace to the Abbey — for she was as passionately fond of a show-day, as any country cousin or school girl in her teens ! She was ' clad in a crimson velvet robe, and Northumberland bore the Sword before her — the Heralds-at-arms, in their rich mantles with trumpets blowing.' The Bishops, twenty-one in number, ' rode in their robes of scarlet lined, and hoods down their backs of minever.' All the other Lords came ' following in her train ; and the Queen, with her noble and stately retinue, went in at the north door of the Abbey, where she heard a sermon from Dr. Nowell, the Dean of St. Paul's.' Thereafter, 'a psalm being sung, she and her honourable company left at the south door and proceeded to the House of Parlia ment.' z After all, a little display of power and splendour like this, and especially an avowal of, and identification of herself with, the Reformed Religion in that grand function of worship at the Abbe}', were not only excusable, but even necessary, in the crisis that was rapidly maturing round the Queen and her kingdom. War had broken out betwixt England and France ; and Papal hands at Rome were already fingering the thunderbolt of excommunication, ere long to be launched ! On 3d March a bill passed into an Act, bearing the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 669-677. 2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 677. 94 THE QUEEN'S SUPREMACY [booki =^ ^ La.d. 1562 following title: — 'For the Assurance of the Queen's Majesty's Royal Power over all States and Subjects within her Do minions.' The stringency of its terms reveals what was then considered to be the peril of the age. For any man ' to assert three times by writing, word, or deed, the authority of any foreign Prince, Prelate, or State, in spiritual matters, in England, or in any other of the Queen's dominions,' was enacted and declared to be ' high treason.' Also, ' to refuse the oath of supremacy to the Queen, in matters spiritual or over persons ecclesiastical, after it had been twice tendered.' Certain ' provisoes ' were introduced to prevent the vexatious use of this statute, and to hold it chiefly as a terror over the heads of suspected ' traitors ' and a test of civil loyalty — e.g., such as that ' they should not fall under an attainder nor forfeit their goods and chattels,' — that ' the oath should not be exacted from any Peer of the realm, or other person of eminent quality, whose allegiance the Queen did not in the least question,' nor indeed of any but 'such who were, had been, or should be, in holy orders, or did then bear or should bear some ecclesiastical office ; ' or, finally, such as ' should refuse, after warning given, to observe the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England,' or should ' dishonour the same in public either by word or deed ; or should celebrate or hear the Mass.' a Against the ' rigours ' of this statute, one voice alone was raised in the Peers' House ; and one only amongst the Com mons ; at least their speeches, and none others, have been handed down to us. Lord Montague again contended warmly, that ' this law was unnecessary,' forasmuch as 'the Papists,' as they call them, ' disturb not nor hinder the public affairs of the realm,' ... so that ' no man can say that the realm doth receive any hurt or damage by them.' 2 But this, so boldly denied by him, was the very thing which the Queen and her Parliament 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 686. 2 Ibid. pp. 687, 688. chap. vii. "1 THE RIGOURS OF THE STATUTE 95 a.d. 1562 J so eagerly affirmed — that Papists were ' dangerous to the safety and peace of the state.' In the House of Commons, a very able and moderate speech was made by Mr. Atkinson of the Inner Temple, a zealous Roman Catholic. He frankly declared that ' whether any foreign power be lawful to be received within this realm, or whether in conscience a man ought to take his oath,' were matters ' put out of question by the decision of the High Court of Parliament in the first year of the Queen's reign,' and against which it ' would ill become him to reason.' ' But, marrie,' proceeded he, ' the question that we now have in hand is whether an offence committed against that statute ought to be so sharply punished, as this bill here requireth?' With great learning and force he argues at length, ' that the punishment already heretofore devised is sufficient, that the punishment proposed now is too rigorous, and that though this act went forward yet no benefit could thereof grow to the Commonwealth.' He admits ' that if the offence were treason, if the offenders therein were traitors by the common laws of the realm as men that sought to take the Crown from the King and give it to the Pope, then would he think no punishment too great for it ; and pity it were that even for a first offence it was not made death, instead of Praemunire! But he devotes his speech, thereafter, to demonstrate that ' the maintenance of foreign jurisdiction was not by the laws ever accounted treason,' and that the punishment thereof ' ought not to be so great neither.' It is a weary and dry-as-dust wilderness of legal quibbling, relieved only by this one happy retort, which gives a glimpse into the very heart of these unsettled times : — ' Your own preachers tell us that religion must sink in by persuasion, that it cannot be pressed in by violence. Therefore they call Henry's Act of the Six Articles the "whip with six lashes ;" and the dealings in Queen Mary's days they much misliked, 96 PAPISTS DECLARED TRAITORS [book i. La.d. 1562 calling the Bishops " blood-suckers ; " . . . and that with such vehemency and stomach, as I assure you I marvel how it can possibly come to pass, that they should now desire to establish that as a law which they thought then so far unlawful.' x But no learning and no legal hair-splitting could affect the decision of a united Parliament, nor alter the inevitable drift of opinion throughout the country. Elizabeth and her Government had manifestly the nation at their back when they enacted and declared, that every soul in these dominions who held or advocated ' any right of foreign jurisdiction on behoof of any person whatever' should be regarded and treated as a ' traitor ' to the kingdom of England ; and that stinging word ' foreign ' had a direct, if not practically an exclusive, reference to the Pope and the Court of Rome. And so the oath of supremacy was by this Parliament, for the first time, sworn by all the members in both the Houses, and that in pursuance of a Parliamentary statute made in the first year of Elizabeth's reign. The Popes of Rome now know for what England and her Queen had determined to fight to- the bitter end. The wild concessions, made or exacted in Mary's reign, had once more run their fated course, had been abused in the interests of tyranny and persecution, and had again been cancelled and withdrawn in the interests of the Commonwealth and of national safety and national independence. The conflict deepens. Passion now lashes the combatants. The history thickens and darkens with Bull and plot, all of which we must leave to the general annalist of the times, and pursue with single eye the purpose of this book. What say the Parliamentary records and statutes about concessions to Papal Claims and the withdrawal of concessions ? While Parliament was sitting, April 1571, the thunderbolt from the Vatican was at last launched against Elizabeth. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 689-695. chap, vii.l BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION gy a.d. 1571 J It was announced to the House 'that the Bull of Excom munication had been issued by Pope Pius V., and had been affixed to the Bishop of London's palace-gate.' Instantaneously, an Act was passed into law, bearing the almost contemptuous title :— ' A Bill against bringing in and putting in Execution of Bulls, Writings, or Instruments, or other Superstitious Things from the See of Rome.' It was sharply enacted, ' that whosoever by Bulls or other rescripts of the Pope should reconcile any man to the Church of Rome, and those who should be so reconciled, should be guilty of high treason ; that whosoever did relieve such as did so reconcile men, or should bring into England any Agnus Deis, beads, crucifixes, or other things consecrated by the Pope, should incur the penalty of a Praemunire ; and that whosoever should not discover such reconcilers should be guilty of " concealing," that is, misprision of treason.' Nay, so determined were Elizabeth and her counsellors to smite down treachery, that they pursued those malcontents who had left the country, and were undermining England from abroad. And so, in the following month of May, a ' Disenabling Bill ' was passed against fugitives over seas, 'recalling all who had gone abroad without the Queen's leave, within a limited time, on pain of forfeiture of their estates.' And this, in the very same session, was buttressed by a still further Act, declaring 'all conveyance, gift, alienation etc., of their estates by such fugitives to be fraudulent ;' and ordaining any such ' to be set aside ' as of no avail in law.1 Neither at home nor abroad, neither by open attack nor by secret fraud, shall any English subject be permitted to assail, unpunished^the supremacy of England's Sovereign ! The Members of Parliament were speedily taught, how ever, that they had bestowed upon the Queen a title and a power which could also be handily turned against themselves. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 731, 732. VOL. I. G 98 A FEMALE POPE ["booki.La.d. 1572 All through the Parliament of 1571 debates had been in augurated by Mr. Strickland, Mr. Norton, and others, on the ' abuses in religion,' on the bill for ' coming to church,' and the bill for 'reforming the Book of Common Prayer.'1 They had been told in the Queen's name, ' that Her Majesty hath authority, as head and chief of the Church, to deal therein ;' they had agreed 'to petition for the Queen's licence and privity to proceed ;' and, in answer, Mr. Strickland, for his zeal and speech ' in pressing the reformation of the Book of Common Prayer,' had been summoned before the Queen's Council, and 'ordered to forbear attending the House till their pleasure was further known.'2 At last, in the new Parliament of 1572 — summoned, amongst other purposes, to consider that ' great affair,' the trial of poor Mary, Queen of Scots — the House of Commons, having again intermeddled with a ' Bill of Rites and Cere monies in the Church,' received from Elizabeth the following amazing message: — 'The Speaker declared to the House that it was the Queen's pleasure that from henceforth no Bills concerning Religion should be preferred or received into that House, unless the same should be first considered and approved by the Clergy.' She further demanded ' the two last bills ' touching rites and ceremonies to be delivered to her ; and, having perused them, sent back word by the Treasurer of the Household, ' that she utterly misliked them and him who brought them in ;' adding further these 'com fortable' words: — 'That her Majesty, as Defender of the Faith, will aid and maintain all good Protestants to the discouraging of all Papists.'3 Not a bad echo of the tones of her royal father. If there be never a female Pope any where else, as some have insinuated that there once was, England may safely claim to have had one of her own type in the person of Queen Elizabeth ! 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 734, 738, 746. 2 Ibid. p. 765. s Ibid. pp. 781, 782. chap, vii."] SIR WALTER MILD MAY 99 A.D. 1581 J But these are questions of internal reform. They pertain properly to the history of the Church of England, and must not, though very alluring, divert us from our own chosen pathway. Like the frequent 'petitions and appeals' from her Parliaments urging the Queen 'to marry for her country's good,' they belong to the nation's own private affairs, and are rightly left to the solution of the interplay of all national forces. We pursue our study of the nation's relationship to the Claims of the Papacy as an alien power, working from within and from without. The Parliament which was summoned to meet at West minster, 8th May 1572, and which sat for nearly eleven years, might be called the ' Prorogation Parliament,' being prorogued as many as twenty-four times in succession on one occasion, and eighteen on another. The session of January 1581 was rendered memorable by a message from the Queen, and speech thereon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Walter Mildmay. As the whole House unanimously adopted his proposals, and appointed strong committees to put them at once into the shape of bills to be carried into laws, we cannot possibly err in placing the gist of that speech before our readers, as embodying the sure convictions of the time. The Chancellor, prefacing that he meant to set before them the present ' state ' of the kingdom, the ' dangers ' justly feared, and the ' provision ' that ought to be made to prevent or resist them, continued thus : — ' That our most gracious Queen did at her first entry loosen us from the yoke of Rome, and did restore unto this realm the most pure and holy religion of the Gospel, which for a time was overshadowed with Popery. . . . But from hence, as from the root, hath sprung that implacable malice of the Pope and his confederates against her, whereby they have and do seek not only to trouble, but if they could, to bring the realm again into thraldom. . . . For the proof whereof these 100 THE POPE'S 'VENOM' [booki. L A.D. 1581 may suffice : — the Northern Rebellion stirred up by the Pope and the quarrel for Popery ; the maintenance sithence of these rebels and other fugitives ; the publishing of a most blasphemous, impudent, and malicious Bull against our most rightful Queen ; the invasion into Ireland by James Fitz- Morris, with the assistance of some English rebels ; the raising of a dangerous rebellion in Ireland by the Earl of Desmond and others, intending thereby to make a general revolt of all the whole realm ; and the late invasion of strangers into Ireland and their fortifying it. The Pope turned thus the venom of his curses and the pens of his malicious parasites into men of war and weapons, to win that by force which otherwise he could not do. . . . ' The Queen, nevertheless,' continued Sir Walter, ' by the Almighty Power of God, standeth fast, maugre the Pope and all his friends ! . . . But yet, behoveth us not to be careless . . . but rather to think that there is but a piece of the storm over ; and that the greater part of the tempest remaineth behind, and is like to fall on us by the malice of the Pope . . . and the combination with other Monarchies and Princes devoted unto Rome.' Further, 'as the Pope, by open hostility, hath showed himself against her Majesty, so he doth by secret practices within this realm leave nothing untried ... so that the obstinate and stiff-necked Papist, instead of being reformed, hath gotten stomach to go backward, and to show his disobedience in arrogant words and contemptuous deeds. To confirm them therein, and to increase their number, the Pope doth comfort their hollow hearts with " absolutions," "dispensations," "reconciliations," and such other things from Rome ; lately sending hither a sort of hypocrites, naming themselves Jesuits, a rabble of vagrant friars newly sprung up and running through the world to trouble the Church of God ; whose principal errand is by creeping into the houses of men of behaviour and reputation, not only-to corrupt the chap, vii.1 SEDITIOUS RUNAGATES IOI a.d. 1581 J realm with false doctrine, but also, under that pretence, to stir up sedition, to the peril of Her Majesty and her good subjects. . . . Now I say,' exclaimed the Chancellor, 'it is time for us to look more narrowly and seriously to them, lest they prove dangerous members to many born within the entrails of our Commonwealth ! ... It is necessary that we make a provision by laws more strict and more severe, to constrain them to yield their open obedience at least to her Majesty, ... so that if they will needs submit themselves to the benediction of the Pope, they may feel how little his curses can hurt us, and how little his blessings can save them from that punishment we are able to lay upon them ; letting them also find how dangerous it shall be for them to deal with the Pope or anything of his, or with those Romish priests and Jesuits ; and therewith also how perilous it shall be for those seditious runagates to enter into this land, or to draw away from her Majesty that obedience which by the laws of God and man are her due ! ' : And then Sir Walter outlines what will be necessary as to 'provision of forces,' especially in the number of 'good ships,' to answer ' any violence that may be offered to this Island-Kingdom environed by God Himself with the natural and strong wall of the sea.' Every line of his oration to the end rings with the bugle notes of freedom and the Gospel, though we must restrain ourselves, and pass it here in silence. But the above extract, containing the essence of the Chan cellor's speech as to the Papal Claims and the emissaries from the Court and Church of Rome, reflects truly and fully the mind of the England of that day ; and is infinitely more suggestive and more trustworthy than mere comments and inferences by modern historians. These were the actions of the Papacy and of the abettors of the Popes. And these were the safeguards and defences by which, and by which alone, our ancestors secured the liberties which 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 813-819. 102 A DRASTIC BILL [booki. Lad, 1586 they have handed down to us. We set the issues in the light of fact and history and law. Every reader has here the materials for forming a fair and just opinion. Accordingly when a new Parliament was summoned, in 1585, one of its first measures was an Act bearing the following title, ' A Bill against Jesuits, Seminary Priests, and other such Disobedient Persons.' In March 1586 it passed both Houses. The statute enacted — 'That Jesuits and all other Popish Priests should depart this realm within forty days; that those who should afterwards return should be guilty of high treason ; that he, who shall willingly and wittingly harbour, relieve, and maintain them, should be guilty of felony ; that those English who were brought up in Seminaries abroad, if they returned within six months after notice given, and submitted not themselves to the Queen before a Bishop or two Justices, should be guilty of high treason ; . . . that if any should know of any such Jesuits, or other priests above said, lurking within the realm, and should not discover them within twelve days, he should be fined and imprisoned -at the Queen's pleasure ; . . . that those children or others, sent to seminaries of the Popish persuasion, should not succeed as heirs, nor enjoy any estates . . . unless they did return home within a year and conform themselves to the Church of England ; and, that if the warders or officers of the ports should permit any others, besides seamen or merchants, to cross the seas without licence- . . . they should be put out of their places, and the masters of such ships as carried them should forfeit their ships and goods, and suffer imprisonment for a year.' 1 Possibly many a reader in our peaceful times may be disposed unthinkingly to sympathise with the solitary voice heard in Parliament against this drastic bill. Dr. William Parry, a Welshman, declared that it was ' a cruel and bloody and desperate law ; and that it would be of pernicious 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 822. chap. vii.T THE SPANISH INVASION 103 a.d. 1588 J consequence to the English nation.'1 But well-informed minds will reflect that the England of that day was ringed round with mighty and unscrupulous enemies banded for her destruction ; and, before condemning the ' Bill against Secret Emissaries,' they will ask,— What, at this hour, would our Parliament not be prepared to do, and justified in doing, if Britain were grappling again with all Europe combined against her, to disable and imprison and expel every secret enemy from our shores? We hope, we believe, that if a stronger measure could be framed, it would once again be carried, nem. con., — the Parliament seeing to-day, as it saw then, that as against the State, every man who, under what ever pretence, religious or political, seeks by fraud and violence to overthrow the Constitution by law established, has forfeited all rights of citizenship, and may justly be deprived of liberty, and of life itself, in the interests and for the safety of the Commonwealth. The crash came, in 1588, and meets us in the Parlia mentary records in this form : — February 22, — ' Sir Chris topher Hatton, Vice-Chamberlain, opens to the House the affair of the Spanish Invasion.'2 All the Histories are full of this picturesque episode in our national life. The purposes of the present inquiry will be best subserved by showing the reader how the Invasion presented itself to the Queen's Government, and what convictions regarding it possessed the mind of Parliament and the representatives of the nation at large. Sir Christopher, who afterwards became Lord Chancel lor, acquainted the House, 'that it was her Majesty's pleasure they should have disclosed to them the dangers the nation then stood in ; that she thanked God she had so good a House of Commons, and wished this session might be short, that men concerned as Governors might go home to their governments for the sake of hospitality and 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 823-827. 2 Ibid. p. 847. 104 MALICE AGAINST THE QUEEN f book I. ^ La.d. 1588 defence ; and to take another time for the making of laws, except such as are immediately necessary.' The dangers spoken of by Sir Christopher were 'such as sprang from ancient malice against the Queen ; ' and the substance of his speech was drawn up under the follow ing heads : — ' The Catholics abroad, — the Pope, the King of Spain, the Princes of the League ; and the Papists at home and their ministers.' The ' principal root of all' he declared to be ' the Council of Trent, which decreed to extirpate the Christian Religion (which they term Heresy), where unto divers Princes consented and bound themselves in solemn manner.' He then set forth in order the steps taken against Queen Elizabeth : ' Pope Pius V. sent his excommunication against her Majesty ; Dr. Morton, and Mendoza, the Spanish Ambassador, bestirred them, and the Northern Rebellion was bred, the Pope and the rest practising for the Scottish Queen ; Pope Paulus XIII. sends Jesuits and Semin arists to England and Ireland, and they proceed to inveigle the subjects and dissuade them from obedience ; Visko beginning a rebellion in Ireland, James Fitz-Morris furthereth the execution thereof ; Dr. Sanders and Desmond stir new rebellion there ; Parry was moved to kill her Majesty, and persuaded it was meritorious ; Pope Sixtus v. writeth to the Cardinals of Lorraine and Guise, and moveth them to join with the Princes of the League, to win the King of Scots to set up the Scottish Queen in England ; and he made his reckoning of the Cantons that be Popish, the Switzers, the Duke of Savoy, the Duke of Ferrara, the King of Spain, and the King of France ; and the chief instrument to work this was " father " Henry, who wrote of it all to the Scottish Queen, and, after visiting France, Germany, and Italy, made known the effect of his labours to the Pope.' This leads Sir Christopher to expound the malice of the King of Spain at great length : — ' He comforteth the Queen's chap. vii. "1 DESTRUCTION OF THE ARMADA 105 a.d. 1588 J enemies ; he giveth colours of wars ; and he chargeth the Queen that her subjects have aided his rebels in the Low Countries.' Then he analyses the ' purpose of the combined Princes,' whose 'pretence' is to deal with the King of Navarre, whom the Pope has excommunicated, but their ' drift ' is to ruin everywhere, and especially in England, "the Reformed Religion. And, finally, that leads him to declare 'the King of Spain's designments to invade England and Ireland.' Amongst his vast ' preparations ' are emphatically specified, ' twelve thousand men maintained by Italy or the Pope, and six thousand by the Spanish Clergy.' Then, in view of the Pope's complicity against England, Sir Christopher exclaims : ' We must look to these Papists at home and abroad . . . They practise to frame subjects against all duty, and bring in doctrine of lawfulness and merit to kill the Queen, and have sent their instruments abroad to that purpose.' Her Majesty's 'courage against her enemies' malice ' was then glowingly commended, — the House being called on to esteem it ' no less than that of the stoutest Kings in Europe ! ' 1 That was in February 1588. One short year only has passed away, crowded with mighty events. We again enter Parliament, February 1589, and hear the Lord Chancellor Hatton telling to the House the story of the Spanish In vasion. The Queen was present, and her ears must have tingled with no common pride, as he declared, 'While her Majesty was labouring for peace and not war, behold a vast navy of Spanish ships were seen on our English coasts ; such a navy that, for number and greatness, for arms and forces, and for all kinds of stores, was never seen afloat on the ocean before. But God Almighty, her Majesty's hope, defender, and preserver, rendered this vast Armada of her enemies vain and useless. For the British Navy, by far inferior in number and strength, happily attacked once and Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 847-850. 106 THE ENEMIES OF ENGLAND ["booki. L A.D. 1589 again these huge raised up rocks and mountains of ships ; and at the third conflict so dispersed, shattered, and dis abled them, that never thinking to renew the fight they fled for it ; and took a long course hitherto unheard of, for they steered round Scotland, Ireland, and the most northern regions, and by those means hoped to regain the Spanish coasts. But what shipwrecks they suffered, what hardships they bore, how many ships, soldiers, and seamen they lost, neither can they yet know, nor we for certain learn ! ' Then the Chancellor drove home his lesson thus : — ' But to what end is this recital ? Do not you imagine that the Spaniards are ardent for revenge? Yea, this is the great cause of summoning this Parliament, that preparations may be made, that arms and forces and money may be in readiness, and that our Navy, the greatest bulwark of this kingdom, may be repaired, manned, and fitted out for all events with the uttermost expedition ! ' 1 We need not wonder that one of the largest ' supplies ' ever granted by any Parliament was enthusiastically carried through both Houses : ' four fifteenths and tenths and two entire subsidies by the Temporalty ; and by the Clergy two subsidies of six shillings in the pound, to be paid yearly by two shillings in the pound.'2 The blood of the nation rose to a terrible height. The very existence of this country as a Sovereign State had been imperilled. Nor could any apparent or even actual patriotism of individual Roman Catholics here and there blind the Government or the nation to the absolutely certain fact, that the Papacy had egged on the enemies of England ; and accordingly, that if she is to live on at all amongst the nations of Europe she must arm at all points, and must treat every adherent of the Pope as at heart her foe. Consequently, we need scarcely be startled to find that 'no Parliament in this reign was allowed to pass without 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 853, 854. 2 Ibid. p. 855. chap, vii."] POPISH RECUSANTS 107 a.d. 1593 J what is called an Act against Popish Recusants ; ' the drift of all of which may be gathered from one, introduced into the House of Lords in 1 593, under this suggestive title : — 'An Act for the restraining and punishing of Vagrant and Seditious Persons, who, under the Feigned Pretence of Conscience and Religion, corrupt and seduce the Queen's Subjects.' 1 This hits the nail squarely upon the head. Popery calls it 'conscience and religion.' Common sense, as also statute law, call it ' corruption and sedition.' Nor had ' Recusants ' very much reason to complain of this or similar statutes, if they were indeed guilty of 'treason.' By these, instead of being sent straight to the block, they were only ' confined to within five miles of their dwellings, on forfeiture of all their goods and chattels and lands, during life.' And so on, through every Parliament till the death of Elizabeth the roll of battle-thunder is ominously heard, and always from the same quarter. In the Lord Treasurer Burleigh's speech for a supply in 1593 there is fierce refer ence to the Pope's inciting the King of Spain ' newly to invade this realm ; ' and he declares : — ' There hath followed continually such a deadly malice from the King of Spain, the Bishop of Rome, and their confederates, as unto this day, wherein no intermission hath been of attempts against her Majesty and this realm.' 2 During the debate that followed in the Commons, Sir Robert Cecil, the Queen's Secretary, and one of her greatest statesmen, proclaimed that, — ' The occasion of this Parliament is for the cause of religion and the maintenance thereof amongst us, the preservation of her Majesty's person, and .the good of this realm.' And then he proceeded, 'The enemy to all these is the King of Spain, whose malice and ambition is such as that together with the Pope, that Anti-Christ of Rome . . . makes them by all 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 862. 2 Ibid. p. 865. 108 ' PRO ARIS ET FOCIS ' f" book i. La.d. 1601 means to seek the subversion of this State . . . this little land, the sanctuary for all the persecuted saints of God.' 1 In the last Parliament of Elizabeth, 1601, the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, Sir Thomas Egerton, declared in his opening speech : — ' I have seen her Majesty wear at her girdle the price of her blood. I mean jewels which have been given unto her physicians to have done that unto her which I hope God will ever keep from her; but,' he adds with a polished sneer, 'she hath rather worn them in triumph than for the price, which hath not been greatly valuable ! ' 2 And when, in the House of Commons (they being ' for the first time excluded ' from the opening ceremony in the Lords), Mr. Secretary Cecil ' recapitulated the heads of the Lord Keeper's speech,' for their information, he added these fiery words on his own behalf: — 'The King of Spain hath put 4000 of his best expert soldiers into Ireland under a gallant and hardy captain . . . His presence and cause of war there is to defend the Catholic cause, — I mean, to tear her Majesty's subjects from her ; for, I may say, she hath no Catholic obedient subject there, because she standeth "ex communicate " at this present by force of two Bulls of this Pope's — by which the subjects are absolved of their obedi ence. . . . Remember that you do this pro aris etfocis; and for a Prince that desireth all your prosperities . . . not these five, or seven, or ten, but for three-and-forty years ! I hope I shall not live to see her funeral, and I pray God I may not ! '3 Against the ill-informed talk, from sundry quarters, as to the loyalty of the Roman Catholics in this great crisis of our national history, we place these statements of fact and opinion from the Parliamentary Records of the time, and leave them to tell to all succeeding ages their own damning tales. There was no man, in all those troubled days, who was so blind to facts as to question that the Popes of Rome, and all who were the abettors of their claims, were the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 872. 2 Ibid. p. 906. s Ibid. p. 912. chap, vii.-) ELIZABETH'S PERSONALITY 109 a.d. 1593 J , deadly and implacable foes at once of our National Freedom and of our Reformed Religion. Anything to the contrary is / / the merest figment of the imagination, and.was never heard of amongst the men around whom the battle raged ! Elizabeth , v and her Ministers knew who were the enemies of England. In parting from this illustrious reign, we regret that the limits of our work exclude the mention of many happy tit-bits and brilliant flashes, which lighten up the dry-as- dust pages through which we have travelled in pursuit of our single aim. The strong personality of Elizabeth herself gives life to many a scene. It must have been rather a lively time, for instance, when in proroguing Parliament the Queen, in presence of both Houses, turned sharply upon the Bishops, aud said : — ' Thus much I must say, that some faults and negligences may grow and be in the Church, whose over- ruler God hath made me. . . . All which, if you, my Lords of the Clergy, do not amend, I mean to depose you. Look ye therefore well to your charges ! ' ] And again the House of Commons must have felt rather small in her hands, when on their persisting to ' intermeddle ' with reforming the Book of Common Prayer, and several ' abuses ' of Ecclesi astical Courts, Elizabeth demanded them to 'deliver up' their petitions and bills on these subjects to her ; and 'strictly forbade them to meddle in such causes;' nay, she bound the Speaker 'upon his allegiance' not to suffer any such bills ' to be exhibited,' or, if exhibited, she dared him at his peril ' to read them to the House ! ' 2 Fain, also, would we dwell upon two or three world- famous names that flit before us on this Parliamentary platform. The learned Sir Edward Coke, Speaker in the Parliament of 1593, shows us in a memorable speech, built upon the statutes of the realm, ' how the Kings of England, ever since 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 833. 2 Ibid. pp. 850, 878, 889. HO FRANCIS BACON ["booki.La.d. 1597 Henry III,, have maintained themselves to be the supreme head over all causes within their own dominions;' and he thereon recites all the laws ' made by each in his time, for maintaining their own supremacy and excluding the Pope.' x Again, in the same Parliament, a certain Mr. Francis Bacon, whose sententious style every reader will readily recognise, tells us that ' the cause of assembling all Parlia ments hath been hitherto for laws or moneys ; the one being the sinews of peace, the other of war.' 2 And the same famous name appears again in 1597, making a re markable motion for the 'Increase of Husbandry,' and against 'enclosures and depopulation of towns and houses of husbandry and tillage,' — revealing a drift that has gone on ever since, and is going on to-day, with issues that are rapidly proving deadly to the national weal. He brought in two bills thereanent, ' not drawn with a polished pen, but a polished heart;' and he argued 'that the overflowing of the people makes shrinking and abate elsewhere ; and that these two evils, though exceeding great, yet seem the less, because "quae mala cum multis patimur leviora videntur." Though it may be thought very prejudicial to Lords that have enclosed great grounds . . . yet considering the benefit of the Commonwealth . . . every man will deem the revival of former moth-eaten laws in this point a praiseworthy thing. . . . Enclosure of grounds brings depopulation ; and that brings idleness, decay of tillage, subversion of houses, and impoverishing of the realm. . . . And I would be sorry to see within this kingdom that piece of Ovid's verse prove true, "jam seges ubi Troja fuit ;" so in Eng land, instead of a happy town full of people, nought but green fields, a shepherd, and a dog ! ' 3 But we must hasten to a close, only glancing at another bill of 1601, that is strangely suggestive of the questions of to-day, ' for the Suppressing of the multitude of Ale-houses 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 861. 2 Ibid. p. 875. 3 Ibid. p. 899. chap, vii.-] IN THE VAN OF THE WORLD 1 1 1 A.D. 1603 J and Tippling- houses ; ' and still another, entitled, 'An Act against Drunkards and Common Haunters of Ale-houses and Taverns;'1 and a third, for the more 'Diligent Resort to Church on Sunday,' to be enforced by fine and imprisonment ; on which a certain Mr. Bond made a speech beginning with the memorable words : — ' I wish the Sabbath to be sancti fied according to God's commandment ; but I wish that St. Augustine's rule may be observed in the manner, — " Non jubendo sed docendo, magis monendo quam minando." ' 2 And let the last word quoted here be one of Elizabeth's own, illustrative of her strangely mingled temperament of queenliness and insolence. To the Speaker's usual petition regarding ' the liberties ' of the House, on being presented to the Sovereign, the Lord Keeper was instructed to say in 1593, ' To your three demands the Queen answereth : — Liberty of speech is granted you. . . . Privilege of speech is granted . . . not to speak every one what he listeth or what cometh in his brain to utter ; but your privilege is Aye or No. Wherefore, Mr. Speaker, her Majesty's pleasure is, that if you perceive any idle heads . . . which will meddle with reforming the Church and transforming the Commonwealth, and do exhibit any bills to such purpose, that you receive them not until they be reviewed and considered by those who it is fitter should consider of such things, and can better judge of them ' ! 3 As we say farewell to this great, if not greatest, Tudor sovereign, and see her dying on that 24th March 1603, ' in her Manor of Richmond,'4 having reigned four-and-forty years, let us carefully mark, with reference to our present inquiry, that every concession ever made to Popery had now been cancelled and withdrawn, a'nd that the England of Queen Elizabeth's day stood in the van of the world as the antagonist of every Papal Claim. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 910. 2 Ibid. p. 946. 3 Ibid. p. 862. l Ibid. p. 957. BOOK SECOND THE STUART REACTION KING AND POPE versus PARLIAMENT a.d. 1603— 1688 From the Accession of James First till the Abdication of James Second VOL. I. H CHAPTER I YOUR OWN KINDLY KING a.d. 1603 — 1625 THE reactionary conflict begins in earnest with the accession of the House of Stuart. It continues to rage all through their reign. And at length we behold the last king of their race throwing away 'three kingdoms for a Mass.' The heir to Elizabeth was the son of her rival and enemy, Mary, Queen of Scots. The Stuart Line thus ascended the throne of England. The Crowns were at last united, though a hundred years and more had to pass away before the Parliaments could be merged into one. James VI. of Scotland hasted across the Border, and was crowned at Westminster 'with great solemnity' on 25th July, which is St. James' Day, as 'James I. of England/ This Stuart King, however, as we shall speedily see, was neither saint nor hero, but a veritable small-minded pedant ; to whose absolutist principles, more than to anything else, his son Charles owes it that he lost his head, and his grand son James that he lost his crown. For our more immediate purposes of inquiry, his reign, 1603-25, is full of interest. Almost every page of its Parliamentary Records swarms with references to 'Jesuits, Seminary Priests, and Popish recusants.' So far as these are vital, we shall reproduce them for our readers, and thereby present them with materials that are unimpeachable for form ing a true picture of the times, i.e. of the times as affected by the Claims of the Papacy or by the concessions to Popery. On March 19th, 1604, he whom his contemporaries pro- 115 Il6 THE PEDANTIC KING [book ii. La.d. 1604 fanely called ' King Jamie ' rode in great state to West minster for the opening of his first Parliament, — the Prince of Wales and the Lords spiritual and temporal ' riding on horseback, in their Parliament robes.' The King mounted the throne, and declared 'the causes' of summoning them together in presence of the two Houses in a long and laboured speech, giving them not a bad specimen at the very start of his incurable cacoethes loquendi1 He speaks of the ' two countries ' as united in his person, ' alike lineally descended of both the Crowns ; ' whereby this Island ' has now become a little world within itself, intrenched and fortified round about with a natural, and yet admirable, strong pond or ditch ' . . . ! Your pedantic Stuart has no imaginative touch about ' the silver streak,' and that sort of thing ; he brings you down at once to the mud, — ' a ditch.' Again, ' As God hath made Scotland to enjoy (?) my birth, and the first and most imperfect half of my life ; and you here of England to enjoy the perfect and last half thereof; so can I not think that any would be so injurious to me, no, not in their thoughts and wishes, as to cut asunder the one half of me from the other.' But we refrain from this kingly rubbish, only saying, Alas ! alas ! that the learned George Buchanan, with his ' tawse ' in action on the Royal pupil's softer parts, had no more elsewhere to work upon than this parrot's brain. Still, partly for this very reason that he was a mere echo of the thoughts of others, the King's Review of the State of Religion and of the Claims of Popery, at the time of his accession, gives us a genuine glimpse into the heart of the country. ' At my first coming,' says he, ' although I found but one Religion (and that which is by myself professed) publicly allowed, and by the law maintained, yet found I another sort of Religion, besides a private Sect, lurking within the bonds, of this nation. The one ... is the falsely-called Catholics, but truly Papists ; the other ... is 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 977-988. chap. I. ] CLERICS AND LAICS 1 17 A.D. 1604J the Puritans and Novelists. . . . But now for the Papists . . and as to the persons of any subjects which are of that profession, I must subdivide them into two ranks, Clerics and Laics. . . . And again I must subdivide the same Laics into two ranks, that is, quiet, well-minded and peaceable men, who, being old, have retained their first drunken-in liquor, . . . or, being young, have been nursed upon such venom in place of wholesome nutriment, and that sort of people I would be sorry to punish their bodies for the error of their minds. . . . But the other rank of Laics, who . . . have changed their coats to be factious stirrers of sedition, and perturbers of the Commonwealth ; their backwardness in their religion giveth a ground to me, the Magistrate, to take the better heed to their proceedings, and to correct their obstinacy.' x And then, stiffening to his work, James proceeds to grapple with the real difficulties of the time, and in no uncertain strain : — ' But for the part of the Clerics, I must directly say and affirm, that as long as they maintain one special point of their doctrine and another point of their practice, they are no way sufferable to remain in this kingdom. Their point of doctrine is that arrogant and ambitious supremacy of their head the Pope, whereby he not only claims to be spiritual head of all Christians, but also to have an Imperial civil power over all Kings and Emperors ; dethroning and decrowning Princes with his foot as pleaseth him, and dispensing and disposing of all kingdoms and empires at his appetite. The other point which they observe in continual practice is the assassinations and murders of Kings : thinking it no sin, but rather a matter of salvation, to do all acts of rebellion and hostility against their natural Sovereign Lord, — if he be once cursed, his subjects discharged of their fidelity, and his Kingdom given a prey by that three-crowned Monarch, or rather monster, their head.' 2 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 982. 2 Ibid. p. 983. Il8 'BUT HALF MY SUBJECTS' Tbookii. La.d. 1604 Thereon, having protested that his own is 'the true, ancient, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, grounded upon the Scriptures,' he resolutely admonishes 'the Papists of this land ' that he ' cannot permit the increase and growing of their religion,' without betraying, 'first, himself and his own conscience ; secondly, the whole Isle, ... in betraying their liberties, and reducing them to the former slavish yoke ; . . . and thirdly, the liberty of the Crown ' in his posterity, which,' continues he, ' I should leave again in slavery, having found it left free to me by my predecessors.' Finally, he winds up this part of his speech by an appeal to his subjects that are ' deceived with that corruption,' to foster ' any beginning of instinction in themselves of know ledge and love of the Truth,' to be 'studious to read and confer,' . . . and to use 'all lawful means to further their resolution,' — assuring themselves ' that as long as they are disconformable in religion from us, they cannot be but half my subjects — be able to do but half service — and I, to want the best half of them, which is their souls ! ' We forgive King James many things in his high-flown pedantic speech for the sake of that last phrase — ' But HALF my SUBJECTS.' 1 It is the key to the whole controversy — theirs is a divided allegiance. And he had a good right, after that happy definition, to turn upon ' my Lords the Bishops,' — urging them to be ' more careful and wakeful in their charges ; ' since ' ye see how careful the others are, sparing neither labour nor pains nor extreme peril : — the devil is so busy a Bishop !' 2 We pass by, scarcely allowing ourselves a glance, the great plan on which King James had set his heart, and which Lords and Commons eagerly entered upon, for the ' Union ' of the two Kingdoms in 1604, regarding which the annalist bitterly remarks, 'the commissioners on both sides no sooner met than they found the matter imprac- 1 V. sufra, p. 53. - Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 977-988. chap. i. ] THE TEMPER OF PARLIAMENT 119 a.d. 1604I ticable; for the Scotch, though we had taken their King, absolutely refused to be governed by any of our laws!' Also, that other great affair of King James's, — ' concerning a reformation of certain matters and rites of the Church,' x — because these, and all such, being purely internal questions, do not come within the sweep of this inquiry. But on June 25th, same year, an incident meets us that demands our attention. A bill is being discussed, on its third reading, in the House of Lords, of which the title is instructive, — ' An Act for the due Execution of the Statutes against Jesuits, Seminary Priests, Recusants, etc' One Peer alone opposes it, the grandson of our old friend of the previous reign, Lord Viscount Montague. He not only ' dissented from the bill ; but by way of apology for all sorts of Recusants, undertook the defence of their religion, and inveighed against the whole state of that religion now established in this realm.' The Bishops ' answered to the several points ' of his speech ; but the Lord Chancellor challenged the House to decide 'whether the suffering of such a speech, without censure, would stand with the duty of allegiance they owed to his Majesty.' All agreed that it was 'very offensive;' but Lord Burleigh thought, 'the best and fittest punishment would be to let him pass unregarded and unpunished ! ' 2 Finally, the offender was sent prisoner to the Fleet ; but on 2d July, he appeared at the Bar of the House, amply apologised, and was restored. This little incident clearly reveals the temper of the times, and the spirit of Parliament and of the nation. We cannot refrain from touching upon an extraordinary speech of this time from Sir Edward Phillips, the Speaker of the House of Commons, on presenting certain bills to the King in the House of Lords, on 7th July of this same year. It is a perfect reflex of the age, and it shows the kind of atmosphere which James liked to breathe. Two brief 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 1021, 1023. 2 Ibid. pp. 1042-1044. 120 RHETORIC RUN MAD [book n. La.d. 1604 samples will suffice. ' History, most High and Mighty Sovereign, is truly approved to be the treasurer of times past, the light of truth, the memory of life, the guide and image of man's present estate, pattern of the things to come, and the true work-mistress of experience, the mother of knowledge ; for therein, as in a crystal, there is not only presented unto our views, the virtues, but the vices, the perfections, but the defects, the good, but the evil, the lives, but the deaths, of all precedent governors and government, which held the reins of this Imperial regiment ; where, although the same had ever been managed with one idea or form of government, namely, by the laws' direction, by King's rule, by senate's advice, and by magistrate's discipline ; yet hath the same budded fruits of several kinds of sense, moving from the use or abuse of laws' direction, from the virtue or error of King's rule, from the good or evil of senate's advice, or from the justice or injustice of magistrate's discipline ; for, as good government is the guide-mistress of human happiness and tutoress of public commodity, so is ill government the devouring tyrant of subjects' bliss, and the venomous poisoner of Commonwealth's well-doing.' We skip four pages of this sort of hair-standing-on-end eloquence, giving the reader time to draw breath, and then tackle the closing sentence, in which, referring to the King's refusal of any further subsidy at this time, the Speaker says : — ' And although your Majesty . . . have lately . . . prevented our concluding to present you with a subsidy of crowns and coins, being but a blossom of the fruitful ever bearing tree of our ardent love, loyalty, and duty, . . . yet give us leave (of all other most worthy to be beloved Sovereign !) not only to present you with our humble and dutiful thanks, but also to present you with five subsidies of far more precious price and worth: (1) . . . Many millions of affec- tionated hearts to love you. (2) . . . Loyal minds to obey chap. I. 1 NEW ROYAL TITLE 121 A.D. 1604I you. (3) . . . Zealous spirits to pray for you. (4) . . . Equal proportional hands to fight for you. (5) . . . The treasures of the whole kingdom to supply you ; which the world shall both feel and know, when, where, and against whom whatsoever your Majesty shall be pleased to dispose and command us.'1 Instead, however, of panting any further after this long- winded elocutionist, the general reader will perhaps prefer to note that during the same Parliament, 1604, a change in the style and title of our Sovereigns was for the first time introduced. Henceforth, there is no such name as King or Queen of ' England ' or of ' Scotland.' Legally, these two countries, so far as supplying royal titles is concerned, are for ever abolished. For, by advice of his Council, after many months of learned head-shaking amongst the constitutional lawyers, James was proclaimed ' KING OF GREAT Britain, France, and Ireland.' 2 He could not blend the two Par liaments into one. But he has baptized the two Kingdoms into one by giving them a new common name. Alas ! his children in this far-off nineteenth century have not yet learned to pronounce it; and nine-tenths of our statesmen and able editors still believe that ' England ' includes Scotland, as it includes Yorkshire, — that England is Great Britain ! But these things are all incidents by the way. We come suddenly, during the next session of Parliament, upon the Gunpowder Plot — 'the deepest and blackest plot that ever was laid against King and kingdom.' All our common histories are full of this dastardly event. We limit ourselves, as before, to the Parliamentary Records. In the journals of the Commons, the entry runs thus : — November 5, 1605, — ' This last night the Upper House of Parliament was searched by Sir Thomas Knevett ; and one Johnston, servant to Sir Thomas Percye, was there apprehended ; who had placed 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 1046-1051. 2 Ibid, p, 1052. 122 THE GUNPOWDER PLOT [book ii. L.A.D. I605 thirty -six barrels of gunpowder in the vault under the House, with a purpose to blow up the King and the whole company, when they should there assemble. Afterwards, divers other gentlemen were discovered to be of the Plot.' In the journals of the Lords, on 9th November, it is said : — ' The House being met and the King seated on the throne, the Lord Chancellor . . . then made a relation of the most wicked and horrible treason ever heard of, intended against his Majesty and the whole State, which was purposed to have been put in execution on Tuesday the 5 th instant, the first day of this session, holden by prorogation.' * Thereupon, James himself launched out into a speech of ' thanksgiving to God, for the great and miraculous delivery, at this time granted to me, to you all, and consequently to the whole body of this Estate.' He then refers to ' the daily tempests of innumerable dangers,' to which like other Kings he has been subject ; and thereafter singles out two, ' more special and greater dangers than all the rest' The first was ' the point of the dagger ' in his own kingdom, wherein he was nigh to be 'baptized in blood.' The second was 'this de struction, prepared not for me alone, but for you all, wherein no rank or age or sex should have been spared ; not a crying sin of blood, as the former ; but well may it be called, a roaring, yea, a thundering sin of fire and brimstone, from the which God hath so miraculously delivered us all.' Commenting further upon 'the cruelty of the plot' itself, James dwells at length upon the fearful device, and says : — ' Not for the destruction of my person only, or of my wife and posterity, but of the whole body of the State in general ; . . . the whole Nobility, the whole reverend Clergy . . . the most part of the Knights and Gentry ; yea, and if that any in this society were favourers of their profession, they should all have gone one way ; the whole judges of the land ; . . ¦ and, as the wretch himself that is in the Tower doth confess, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 1052. chap. I. 1 SPEECH FROM THE THRONE 123 A.D. 1605I J it was purposely devised by them, and concluded to be done in this House — that where the cruel laws, as they say, were made against their Religion, both place and persons should all be destroyed and blown up at once ! ' The King continues, dilating upon 'the small or rather no ground,' which the practisers had 'for inventing this tragedy : ' — ' And the wretch himself, now in hands, doth confess, that there was no cause, moving him and them, but only their Religion ! ' And, finally, setting forth what now remains to be done, ' upon this horrible and strange affair,' he vigorously protests, — ' It is true that no other sect of heretics, not excepting Turk, Jew, nor Pagan, no, not even those of Calicute who adore the devil, did ever maintain by the grounds of theif Religion, that it was lawful, or rather "meritorious," as the Romish Catholics call it, to murder princes or people for quarrel of Religion.' But he puts in this plea for justice and charity, in the highest moment of revenge : — ' I therefore thus do conclude this point ; that as, upon the one part, many honest men, seduced with some errors of Popery, may yet remain good and faithful subjects ; so, upon the other part, none of these that truly know and believe the whole grounds and school-conclusions of their doctrine, can ever prove, either good Christians or faithful subjects.' 1 Parliament, having heard these things, was prorogued till the following January; and it may, without challenge, be affirmed that the reader, by studying these statements from the Records of Parliament, sees at first-hand, and without comment of later times, the living impressions produced by the actual facts as they transpired. Historians of to-day can mystify us by their clever philosophisings ; but King James and his statesmen had to wrestle with an enemy whose spirit and principles they understood by actions and not by mere speculation. They laid guilt, exactly where it 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 1053-1061. 124 THE 'STATE-MONKS' [book n. La.d. 1606 ought to lie, on a system calling itself a ' Religion,' but being actually a ' seditious conspiracy against the Commonwealth.' They blamed not so much individual and misguided Romanists, but rather, and explicitly, the Papacy, the Court and Church of Rome. No sooner did Parliament re-assemble, 21st January 1606, than the Records are full of this same Popish Plot The Lords, on the motion of Bancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, seconded by Vaughan, the Bishop of London, and supported by Cecil, the Earl of Salisbury, appointed a strong committee ' to consider the laws already in force, that tend to the preservation of Religion, his Majesty, the State, and Commonwealth ; what defects are in the execution of them, or what new laws may be thought needful.' The Commons, on the same day, were moved by Sir George Moore, ' to consider the late conspiracy ; the like whereof never came upon the stage of the world ; and to devise what course may be fittest to settle the safety of the King, and to prevent the danger of Papistical practices.' Sir Francis Hastings declared the Plot to be ' Popish, dangerous, and desperate.' The Solicitor-General declared 'that these State-monks had got a new Divinity ; it was lawful for them to lie, to dissemble before a magistrate, to kill an heretic' And the conclusion was this : — ' The appointment of a large Committee to consider of some course for the timely and severe proceeding against Jesuits, Seminaries, and all other Popish agents and practisers, and for the preventing and suppressing all their plots and practices.' x Day after day this Popish Plot fills the whole field of Parliamentary vision. They laboured ' to fix some indelible mark of their resentment on such an infamous intention.' Conspirators were arrested and tried ; suspects were sent to the Tower, among them the three ' Popish Lords ' — North umberland, Mordaunt, and Stourton. Great discussions 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 1062. chap. i. ] ABETTORS OF PAPAL CLAIMS 12 5 A.D. 1606J •> were held in both Houses as to inventing some new and additional punishment ' for the miners in the late plot' But wiser heads prevailed, and let them stand their trial at common law. And the fiery Commons compromised the matter by sending up to the Lords, on 25th January, ' an Act for appointing a Thanksgiving to Almighty God, every year, on the 5th of November,' — for ' the great blessing of God in the happy preservation of his Majesty and the State from the late most dangerous treason, intended to have been attempted by the instigation of Jesuits, Seminaries, and Romish priests.' The Lords passed the bill in three days, 'without ever going into Committee upon it' — so intense and undivided was the national conviction at this time. And the outcome of all the committees, and of the conferences of both Houses is found in two new acts, of which the titles are all that we here require, viz., ' an Act for Discovering and Repressing of Popish Recusants,' and ' an Act to Prevent and Avoid Dangers which may Grow by Popish Recusants.' These men were in the thick of the re actionary conflict. They refused to split hairs as to whether a man who swore allegiance to a ' Foreign ' priest might not also be a good subject of the King and a faithful citizen of the kingdom. He must ' renounce ' all such alien jurisdiction. If he refused, he was treated as an enemy of his country, and had to abide the ' laws against recusants.' x On May 26th, 1610, — amidst the great affairs of 'Tenures,' ' Dr. Cowel's book tending to advance the Prerogative Royal,' 'Naturalisation of the Scotch,' 'the King's Speech for hastening the Union,' and the ' form of creation of Henry the Prince of Wales,' — the Chancellor of the Exchequer suddenly appears before the Lords and asks them to join in the following petition to the King :— (1) ' That Proclamation be made forthwith that all Recusants before the 2d June next do avoid the city, and resort to such places where they 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 1063, 1064. 126 DISABLEMENT OF ENEMIES [book ii. Ia.d. 1610 are by law confined, and not to remain within ten miles of the city or the Court without licence. (2) That all Recusants be disarmed, and their arms disposed of as the law requireth. (3) That no subject do resort to the house of any Ambassador to hear Mass. (4) That all Jesuits be imprisoned,1 and not permitted to have conference. And (5) That the Oath of Allegiance be administered in the Court, by the Lords and others of the Council, to all that ought to receive it ; and in the country by the Justices of the Peace.' The pass to which things had been driven by the machinations of the abettors of Papal Claims is seen in the fact that the Lords, without dissent, at once ' agreed ' to this severe petition. It all meant only one thing — implacable enemies must be disarmed and disabled. Later times have been, and will be, driven to the same, in actual practice, though the means adopted will vary from age to age. The Proclamation, on the above lines, was issued in June, to take effect ' on 4th July next,' — commanding all Romish priests, Jesuits, and Seminaries to depart the Kingdom ; and all Recusants to return home to their dwellings, not to come within ten miles of city or Court, and to remain confined, according to the statute in that case provided.'1 Which is equivalent to saying to these gentry, in the Saxon tongue of the common people : — ' This country is ours by the gift and grace of God. We mean to keep it free, and independent of all other earthly control, for ourselves and our children. If you renounce the lawful Government of the land, and give your just and highest allegiance to a Foreigner, we may suffer you to live here and enjoy the protection of life and property under certain conditions ; but we must in self- defence disarm you, and otherwise disable you from injuring or betraying your country. If, on these terms, you cannot take shares with us in the citizenship of Britain, we give you till the 4th July next to escape to other shores ! ' 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 1129, 1130. chap. i. ] ANTI-POPISH MEASURES 127 A.D. l620l Despite all these measures, or rather through default in their due ' execution,' we hear King James lamenting, in his next Parliament, 1614, 'the great increase of Popery,' and declaring: — 'Notwithstanding the assiduous labour I have bestowed, . . as witness both my pen and tongue, . . . with more pains than any of my predecessors ; and for my zeal in private, not to vaunt of it . . . all my course of life and actions will speak for me. For the cause thereof ... it is undoubtedly impunity ; and this impunity proceedeth from two reasons : . . . Obscurity in some of the laws, leading to scruples ; . . . and, secondly, want of due execution of the same by my Justices of Peace throughout the country.'1 And in his second speech to the same Parliament, 8th April, he returns to the subject, in his own pedantic style : — 'First, as I say, " a Jove principium" have care to the great increase of Popery. Yet I would not have Papists to vaunt of their good seed, since their greatest conquests are on women and ignorant persons ! . . . And, it is very remark able, an ill cause is most vigilant and careful to defend itself . . . yet, as I say, not to proceed to touch life or land ; for, as I noted, persecution was never a justified way of establish^ ing a religion ; but by the execution of good laws.'2 The third Parliament of James I., called for January 1620, immediately found itself engrossed with anti-Popish measures. On February 5th, in a debate about 'all the Members taking the Communion, as a touchstone of their faith and loyalty,' Sir Edward Gyles declared that 'there were many Popish recusants and multitudes of Jesuits and Seminaries ready for mischief in and about this city . . . and moved to petition the King to put the laws in execution against them.' Sir Jerome Horsey, moving for a ' Committee to search the vaults and cellars under Parliament House twice a week ; ' and commenting on the ' Papists making bonfires and rejoicing over the ruin of the King of Bohemia,' 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 11 50. 2 Ibid. p. 1154- 128 LORD BACON — 'A BROKEN REED' [book ii, Ia.d. 1621 hurled in their face the blistering retort, ' they that eat their God would eat us ! ' 1 On February 14th, accordingly, an imposing Committee brings up from the Commons a message to the Lords. Sir Edward Coke leads the way, with Sir Fulk Grevil,2 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Calvert, and many others, then or afterwards famous in our history. The message was : — ' That the Commons do pray a conference, concerning joining in petition by committees of both Houses unto his Majesty for the better execution of the laws against Jesuits, Seminary Priests, and Popish recusants ; and this, by the Nether House, is desired to be with all convenient expedition.' The Lords heartily agreed. February 17th, 'the following Saturday,' was appointed as convenient for the King to receive them. And the Lord Chancellor under took to be ' the common mouth ' in delivering their petition to his Majesty3 — that Lord Chancellor now being none other than Sir Francis Bacon, the Viscount St. Albans ! This Parliament was troubled with great debates : questions of ' Privilege,' the ' Spanish Match,' and the im peachment of great names ; and amongst the rest the greatly endowed and greatly sinning Lord Chancellor Bacon, who, in 162 1, on his own 'confession and submission,' sank into imprisonment and disgrace, appealing to the committee that waited upon him in those pathetic words — ' My Lords, . . . I beseech your Lordships, to be merciful to a broken reed.'4 In connection with a prolonged debate on ' Supply,' which then as now gave handle for the airing of every ' grievance,' the question of religion called forth some strong declarations. Let these two suffice, as indicative of the extreme and the moderate opinions of the day. Mr. Pymme declared ' that none could get greater popu larity now than to be a friend and favourer of the Papists. 1 Hansard's/". H. vol. i. p. 1 184. 2 Alias Greville. 8 Ibid. p. 1 181. * Ibid. p. 1247. chap. i. ] THE SPANISH MATCH 1 29 A.D. l62lJ He would have the King petitioned as to ' the incompatibility of the Popish religion ; ' and would let him ' know, and understand that the Pope hath blown over the fire of his Romish religion into this kingdom, and that the Popish party here are as tinder ready to take fire. . . . He would have us beseech the King that there may be a commission from his Majesty to see the laws here of England duly executed against all Papists.'1 But even the legal brain of Sir Edward Coke, moderate and self-restrained in all his speeches, thought it necessary and justifiable to move, 'that all convicted Papists should pay " double subsidies ; " for they are more strangers to our faith and the good of the Commonwealth than the strangers (= Foreigners) who by our law pay double subsidies.'2 Accordingly, on the Speaker resuming the Chair, it was reported by Sir Edward that, amongst other things, 'the House had resolved to give one entire subsidy, to be paid in February next, for the supply of the Palatinate ; and that all Papists, convicted, shall pay as strangers double subsidies ; and also all who are known Recusants.'3 Affairs, however, came to a crash, as between the King and his Parliament, over the Spanish Match. James had determined to marry his son, the heir-apparent, to the Infanta of Spain ; and the probable effects of this, directly and in directly, on the Protestant Establishment of Religion, set the country instantly on flame. On December 3d, 1621, Sir Edward Coke brought in a draft of the ' Petition and Remon strance ' to be presented to the King. He set forth that ' the indisputable prerogatives of the King are to make peace, war, and marriages for his children ; but that this was a Petition of Remembrance or Grace, not requiring an answer. . . . We set down in this petition, that the hope of such a match doth make the Papists insolent ; and do humbly . . . beseech his Majesty ... for the cutting off of their hopes, 1 Handsard's P. H. vol. i. p. 1314. 2 Ibid. p. 1316. 3 Ibid. p. 1317. VOL. I. I 130 FROM TOLERATION TO SUPREMACY [book n. J LA.D. l62I to marry the Prince to one of his own religion, and this with out any further limitation. . . . He thinketh the petition good, and liketh it in omnibus! But others were not so respectful in their language. Mr. Thomas Crewe saith : — ' It is a wonder to see the spiritual madness of such as will fall in love with the Romish harlot, now she is grown so old a hag!' The Petition, as finally adjusted, referred to the various 'causes,' by reason whereof, 'your ill-affected subjects at home, the Popish Recusants, have taken too much encourage ments, and are dangerously increased in their number and in their insolencies ; ' and then proceeded to dilate on the ' effects,' and the ' remedies.' Of the ' causes,' fourteen are specified : — the 2d being ' the devilish positions and doctrines whereon Popery is built, and taught with authority to their followers, for the advance- men of their temporal ends ; ' the 7th, ' the expectation of the Popish Recusants of the Match with Spain, and feeding themselves with great hopes of the consequences thereof; ' the 13th, 'the licentious printing and dispersing of Popish and seditious books . . .;' and the 14th, 'the swarms of Priests and Jesuits, the common incendiaries of all Christendom, dispersed in all parts of your kingdom.' Of the ' effects,' very ' dangerous ' to Church and State, these four are detailed : — '(1) The Popish religion is incom patible with ours. (2) It draweth with it an unavoidable dependency on Foreign princes. (3) It openeth too wide a gap for popularity to any who shall draw too great a party. (4) It hath a restless spirit ; and it will strive by these gradations ; — if it once get but a connivance, it will press for a Toleration, — if that be obtained, they must then have an Equality, — from thence they will aspire to a Superiority, and will never rest till they get a subversion of the True Religion.' Amongst the ten ' remedies ' indicated two only are vital to our present inquiry : — the 5th, ' to put in execution, by the care of choice commissioners, . . . the laws already and chap. I. ] BULLYING THE COMMONS 131 A.D. I62IJ hereafter to be made for preventing of dangers by Popish Recusants, and their wonted evasions ; ' and the 6th, ' that to frustrate their hopes for a future age, our most noble Prince may be timely and happily married to one of our own religion.'1 But the King, having seen a copy of the Petition before hand, instantly despatched a letter from his own hand to the Speaker to be read to the House, expressly forbidding them to forward any such remonstrance to his Majesty. The messengers were already on the road to the King, who was then at Newmarket. The House sent two heralds by special post to recall them ; and then settled down to grapple with the King's letter, and felt they were face to face with a great Constitutional crisis. The privileges and liberties of the Commons of England were manifestly at stake. James's letter is a golden specimen of what an absolutist and tyrant would like to be. He inveighs against ' certain fiery and popular spirits in our House of Commons,' who have dared 'to debate and argue publicly on matters far- beyond their reach and capacity,' and so tending to his ' high dishonour,' and to ' trenching upon the Prerogative Royal.' He orders the Speaker to aquaint them ' that none there shall presume to meddle with his Government or the mysteries of State,' namely, ' his dearest son's match with the daughter of Spain.' He bullies them with the declaration, that he thinks himself 'very free and able to punish any man's misdemeanours in Parliament, as well during their sitting, as after.' And he threatens that, unless their Peti tion be altered and ' reformed,' he will ' not deign the hearing nor answering of it.'2 It is not our province here to pursue the quarrel further ; but this may be regarded as the first skirmish in the great Parliamentary struggle that ended in the Commonwealth and the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 1319-1326. 2 Ibid. pp. 1326, 1327, 1 32 king versus parliament [b°ok "• ¦ J La.d. 1621 The House, after a great debate, answered the King by a second 'remonstrance,' presented by a Committee of Twelve ; and James, hearing of this, tried in his small super ficial way to make a jest, and called for twelve chairs, saying — ' Twelve Kings are a-coming ! ' x The one burden of their cry was simply this — ' The Ancient Liberties of Parliament ; ' and 'his Majesty's answer,' after .a long and minute criticism of them and all their ways, winds up with the following direct slap on the face : — ' We cannot allow of the style, calling it your ancient and undoubted right and inheritance ; but could rather have wished, that ye had said that your privileges were derived from the grace and per mission of our ancestors and us ! etc., etc. ' 2 Thereon, in quick succession, like the blows of combatants whose blood is up, there follow : — ' Committee on the King's Answer,' another ' Explanatory Letter ' from the King, another ' Committee on the Privileges and Liberties of the House,' another ' Letter from the King,' and finally the Commons entered on the Records their ' Protestation con cerning Privileges,' on 18th December 1621, 'sitting the House, between five and six o'clock at night, by candle light.'3 But the King sent for the journals, and with his own hand 'struck or tore out' the said Protestation, pub lished in a few days a ' Memorial ' vindicating his action thereanent, and at last, 6th January following, he issued a long ' Proclamation ' 4 dissolving the Parliament, and giving his many ' reasons ' for so doing. The King suffered dreadful damage in this conflict, and his successors reaped the bitter Dead Sea apples that sprang from what he planted. The Protestation of the Commons may all be summed up in this single claim — ' That every Member of the House hath, and of right ought to have, freedom of speech, . . . and that every such Member of the said House hath like freedom 1 Hansard's/3. H. vol. i. p. 1333. 2 Ibid. pp. 1338-1344. 3 Ibid. pp. 1345-1363. " Ibid. pp. 1366-1376. chap. I. ] THE RIDER AND HIS HORSE 133 A.D. 1 624 J from all impeachment, imprisonment, and molestation, other than by the censure of the House itself.'1 Whatever ill the Spanish Match proposal may have done in other respects, it drove this grand question to a clear issue. ' Pope versus King ' had been already fought out ; but now it is 'King versus Parliament,' with the shade of the Pope behind the King ' strengthening ' him. A Sovereign Pontiff prefers for his servant an Absolutist Monarch, and thereby seeks to own an Enslaved Nation. For two years James struggled on without attempting to face another Parliament. The ' ill-tempered spirits ' he tried to silence, in his own tyrannical way. Sir Edward Coke was sent to the Tower ; Selden and Pymme 2 to other prisons ; Sir Dudley Digges and Sir Thomas Crewe were com missioned to Ireland, 'as a lighter punishment.' But the Infanta business had entirely collapsed, notwithstanding the Prince's journey into Spain, with Buckingham to help him. The exigencies of State were many and urgent. And James summoned a Parliament for 12th February 1624.3 The King's Speech touched tenderly upon the past : — !For matter of privileges, liberties, and customs, be not over-curious ; I am your own kindly King ! ' i But the new Speaker's words, on being presented, had in them the ring of battle : — ' Our desire is that the good laws of Religion ¦ may be confirmed ; and that the generation of locusts, Jesuits, and Seminary Priests, which were wont to creep in corners and do now come abroad, may be, by the execution of these good laws, as with an east wind, blown over the sea.' 5 On the other hand, the Lord Keeper's reply to that, after conferring with the King, boded battle rather than peace: — 'Ye have heard his Majesty's simile, touching a skilful horseman ; which, in Zechariah, is God's simile. Kings are like riders; the Commonwealth is the horse; and the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 1361. 2 Alias Pym. 3 Ibid. p. 1371. 4 Ibid. p. 1375. 5 /&£ p_ I37g_ 1 34 JOINT PETITION OF BOTH HOUSES \B00K "• °^ J La.d. 1624 Law is the bridle, which must be held always with a sure hand, not always with a hard hand, for " aliquando remittit ferire eques non amittit habenas." '1 In the month of April, both Houses are engrossed with this never-ending theme — 'the Popish Recusants.' The Commons moved the Lords to join them in a petition to his Majesty. Long debate was held, — ' Whether any more was requisite to be desired of his Majesty, than the execution of the laws now in force ; lest it should be noised they were beginning a new prosecution.' 2 The Joint Petition of both Houses, as finally adjusted, embraced these two particulars : — (1.) ' For the more safety of your realms and better keeping of your subjects in due obedience. . . . That all the laws be put in due execution, that have been made and do stand in force against Jesuits and Seminary Priests, and all others that have taken Orders by authority derived from the See of Rome, and generally against all Popish Recusants ; and as for disarming them, that it may be according to the laws and according to former Acts and directions of the State in the like case. . . . (2) Seeing we are now happily delivered from that danger, which these treaties now dissolved . . . would certainly have drawn upon us ; . . . we are most humble suitors to your gracious Majesty to secure the hearts of your good subjects by the engagement of your Royal word unto them : — That, upon no occasion of marriage or treaty or other requisite in that behalf from any foreign Prince or State whatsoever, you will take away or slacken the execution of your laws against Jesuits and Priests and Popish Recusants.'3 The King accepted and approved this petition, and answered with great effusion : — ' I protest before God that my heart hath bled when I have heard of the increase of Popery, ... it hath been as thorns in my eyes and pricks in my side ; . . . and if I knew of one way better than other to 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 1381. a Ibid. p. 1406 s Ibid. p. 1409. chap. i. 1 STAND OR FALL BY OUR OWN LAWS 1 35 A.D. 1624I hinder the growth of Popery, I would take it ! ' Nay, in the close of the answer, he rises to a certain dignity seldom at tained in his numerous public speeches : — ' It is against the rule of wisdom that a King should suffer any of his subjects to be holding of and depending on any other Prince than himself; for what hath any King to do with the laws and subjects of another kingdom ? Therefore, assure yourselves, that by the grace of God, I will be careful that no such conditions be foisted in upon any other treaty whatsoever ; for it is fit that my Subjects should stand or fall by their own Laws ! ' 1 These last words are golden—' STAND OR FALL BY OUR OWN laws' — acknowledge no other jurisdiction on earth than the Supreme Courts of your own country. We may, after all, forgive our kindly Kirtg many of his pedantic inflictions, and treasure words like these as not unworthy of the Scottish Solomon. Anyhow they lay the axe at the root of all Papal Claims. Before the end of May, same year, the final attack during this reign was made upon the Papist Recusants, but this time expressly for the purpose of displacing all such from 'Offices of Power and Trust' The Commons drew up a petition to the King against all who were 'justly suspected,' and asked the Lords to ' confer and join ' with them. The ' Petition for the Removal of Recusants from Offices of Trust ' thanks the King for ' religiously and openly ' publishing ' the due execution of the laws and Acts of State against Popish Recusants,' informs his Majesty of ' the growth of this dangerous sort of people,' within his kingdom, and of 'their insblency and boldness,' in ' creeping into offices and places of Government and authority,' and deliberately places before the King 'two lists of names,' viz., (1) Persons in places of charge and trust, who are ' themselves Popish Recusants or suspected of being ill-affected in religion ; ' and (2) Persons 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 1410, 141 1. 136 OFFICES OF TRUST AND POWER [book 11. La.d. 1624 in places of charge and trust ' whose wives, children, or servants, are Popish Recusants or suspects.' And then the petitioners conclude : — ' Now in consideration of the great countenance hereby given to Popery, the great grief and offence to all your best-affected and true and loving subjects, the apparent danger of the whole kingdom by putting the power of arms into such hands as by former Acts of your Majesty's Council are adjudged persons justly to be sus pected and themselves fit to be disarmed ; your said loyal and faithful subjects do most humbly beeseech your Majesty graciously to vouchsafe that the said Lords and Gentlemen above named may be removed from all your Majesty's commissions of great charge and trust . . . and from all offices and other places of trust.' All this the Lords 'wholly allowed and approved of;' but they demurred to publicly going into Committee on these ' names,' and thereby ' striking deep into their reputa tion ' without giving them a chance of being heard. Accord ingly their proposal was ' to move his Highness, the Prince, to privily acquaint his Majesty with this as with a matter of State.' Both Houses accepted this compromise, and the Prince received their humble thanks, ' that he was pleased, as of himself to intimate their requests unto his Majesty ; and they hoped that it would receive a gracious answer.'1 As we read this, and recall what manner of man Charles afterwards proved himself to be, we are suggestively re minded of the parable about the lamb that was committed to the care of the wolf ! An affair of considerable significance, and which lets in much light on our inquiry, known as the ' Complaint against the Bishop of Norwich,' demands our attention here. The citizens of Norwich had laid certain charges against him before the Commons. The Commons, justifying their action by reference to many statutes authorising them to ' proceed 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 1484- 1486. chap. I. ] HARSNET'S APOLOGIA 137 A.D. 1 624 J against the governors of the Church,' urged these charges in the House of Lords. They were these six, several of which are again to the front in our own days : — That he ' inhibited or disheartened preachers ; ' that he ' set up images in the churches,' for instance, 'one of the Holy Ghost fluttering over the font ; ' that he punished those ' who prayed not towards the East ; ' that he ' punished a Minister for catechising his family and singing of psalms ; ' that he 'used extortion in many ways ;' and that he 'did not enter " institutions," to the prejudice of the patrons.' The Bishop stood up in his place amongst his Peers, and flatly denied all the charges, taking them seriatim, and vindicating himself with great spirit. But the part of his apologia that interests us and deserves to be reproduced in these pages is that in which he rebuts the suspicion of being a Papist. He declared that ' he had preached a thousand sermons, and that nothing of Popery can be attributed to him out of any of them ; ' then he specifies four divers obstacles that keep him from Popery: — (1) 'The usurpations of the Pope of Rome ; no power on earth can touch the authority of a Prince, and he abhorred the usurpation of the Pope over Princes. (2) Their Religion is dyed in blood. (3) The practic course of their Religion is all by juggling and feigned miracles ; against which he had written a book never as yet answered ; and that he never spake with Priest or Jesuit, nor never invited a known Recusant to his table. (4) That their equivocations are the last ; worse than which nothing can be ; and that it were much better to take on with the Devil than with such ! ' 1 The case was referred to the High Commission for examination, and to submit their report to the judgment of the House ; but the affair appears no more on the Parlia mentary journals. And this Bishop, Samuel Harsnet2 by name, who, according to Le Neve, had been guilty of 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 1478-1482. - Ibid. p. 1483. 138 SEDITIOUS POPISH BOOKS [book n. ^ Ia.d. 1624 scandalous practices while he was Master of Pembroke Hall, rose to great honour in the next reign, and figures as Arch bishop of York— by no means the Puritan and Protestant which his brave apologia might have led one to expect ! His ' Reasons against becoming a Papist ' are, on that very account, all the more remarkable and instructive, as quoted above. Coming from such a quarter they are a clearer revelation of the heart and spirit of the Popery of that day than any Reformer's words would have been ; they are indisputable evidence of the Papal Claims then made, and by him even fiercely rejected. The only other scene in this reign that arrests our attention, for present aims, is connected with a ' Petition on Grievances.' The Commons set forth their complaints voluminously concerning ' Fish,' ' Gold Wire-drawers,' ' De fective Titles,' ' Apothecaries,' ' Gaols,' ' Sea Coals,' etc., etc. ; 1 and, amongst the rest, concerning Popish books. It sets forth that, though 'Jesuits and Priests' have been justly banished, yet the said turbulent and ill-affected persons . . . have of late more than heretofore taken the boldness to divulge and disperse sundry Popish, seditious, and pestilent books and pamphlets throughout all parts of this kingdom ; whereof there is a catalogue extant of one hundred and fifty at least, printed and published here within this two or three years, besides no small number daily imported from parts beyond the seas.' The object of all these is one and the same, — ' to corrupt the youth of this realm ... to deprave and scandalise the True Religion here established, to advance the power and authority of the See of Rome, and to with draw the hearts of your faithful and loyal subjects from their due obedience to your royal Majesty.' Therefore it is ' the humble suit' of the Commons in Parliament assembled, ' that speedy course may be taken for the suppressing of all such seditious and Popish books and pamphlets . . . and 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. pp. 1489-1497, chap. i. ] CRAFT OF THE STUART NATURE 1 39 A.D. 1625J that the laws in force against offenders may be put in execution.' 1 To all this the King, in a manifest gush of sincerity, replied, in the course of a long prorogation speech, 29th May 1624: — 'Concerning books, seditious and heretical, it is a shame that England should be the only place in the world to honour such books ! ' But he gave a perhaps * unexpected turn to their thoughts, and revealed his own innermost aversion to some other things as much as, if not more than, to Popery itself, when he added, — ' books, both POPISH on the one side and PURITAN on the other.' With this two-edged sword he smote some of the petitioners themselves ; and doubtless had a secret glee over their dis comfiture, when he continued, 'No man will be more zealous to fulfil your desire on this point than I will.'2 Their desire verily — and more than they desired ! The craft of the Stuart nature gleams through this twofold stroke; and with it we may appropriately close our review of James's reign. On 27th March 1625 he died,3 and left to his more honest and less pawky son the perilous heritage of his high-flown ideas about the Prerogative Royal, and of a kingdom whose loyalty was being sapped and mined by Jesuits and Priests, who were patronised and protected in high quarters despite every law that Parliament could enact against them. Our Solomon's hand on the reins lacked the firmness and grip of the good Queen Bess. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. i. p. 1495. 2 Ibid. p. 1503. B Ibid. p. 1506. CHAPTER II CAROLUS TYRANNUS A.D. 1625 — 164O THE days on which we now enter are crowded full of great names and great events. Monarchy is weighed in the balance and is found wanting. The temptation is stronger than it has ever hitherto been to turn aside and see these great sights ; but we must put upon ourselves a still stronger restraint, to hold on by the thread of our history, and to touch these scenes only in so far as they bear for or against the concessions to Popery. The first Parliament of Charles I., after several proroga tions on account of his bridal with the Princess Henrietta of France, met on 18th June 1625. And the first note that startles us is from the Speaker, Sir Thomas Crewe, on being presented for approval to the King, who expressed in no minced words the resolute desire, 'that now God had put the sword into his hand, he would extend it ... so as not to suffer those locusts, the Jesuits, to eat up the good fruits of the land.'1 A storm immediately bursts out regarding ' the book of a certain Dr. Montagu,' which raged fiercely, and bore within it fatal explosives. The controversy shows like a barometer the electric condition of the times. The book was dedicated to the King, and was entitled Apello Ccesarem. This same doctor had a knack of writing irritating books, for he had previously been censured by the Archbishop for a work entitled A New Gag for an Old ' Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 4. chap. I. ] APELLO CMSAREM 141 A.D. 1625I Goose, in reply to a Popish one called A Gag for the New Gospel. The Recorder of London, in name of his Com mittee on the affair, informs the House that the book teaches 'that the Pope is not Anti-Christus, . . . and that the whole frame of the book was to encourage Popery, in maintaining Papists to be the true Church, and that they differ not from us in any fundamental point' But the King here interfered, informed them that Dr. Montagu was 'his own servant and Chaplain, and that he himself had taken the case into his own hands, and would give the House all due satisfaction.' x The House, however, though discharging him out of prison on bail for £2000, refused to let the matter alone ; and, on Parliament adjourning on account of 'the plague,' and re-assembling at Oxford on August 1st, a great debate broke out on the same affair, raising the general question — ' Whether any of the King's servants might be questionefl in that House ? ' A leader in the affirmative was a certain Thomas Wentworth, yet to become famous, or rather in famous, as Earl of Strafford. ' He declared that Montagu reproached Bible-readers, which was the arms of that University ; and moved to proceed against him for a con tempt of that House.' This was unanimously agreed upon. A conference with the Lords was desired. They made clear that their purpose was ' not to meddle with his tenets, but to leave them to the Bishops.' And finally, Dr. Montagu was commanded to be brought to the House by the Sergeant ' at his peril,' and to ' stand committed till the House discharged him.' 2 Events like this show the drift of King Charles's policy, and the almost preternatural suspicion which he managed to create in the minds of the Commons. And it counted heavily against the King at a later day, when he came to grips of death with his Parliament, that he had promoted 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 6, 7. a Ibid. p. II. 142 GRAND CONFERENCE ON RELIGION [book ii. La.d. 1625 this same Dr. Montagu to be ' Bishop of Chichester,' in defiance of ' the censure of the Nether House.' 1 The same explosive condition is still further illustrated by a Grand Conference on Religion, held in the great hall of Christ Church on August 8th, the Lords and Commons sitting together. The first part of it was engrossed with discussions over a Petition to the King (which, however, was never presented), about his breaking faith with them regarding his promise as to ' the advancement of God's True Religion, and suppress ing the contrary.' They complain that Charles had, im mediately thereafter, 'pardoned a Jesuit, Alexander Baker, and ten other Papists ;' and especially that he had done so on the importunity of ' foreign ' ambassadors. Also, that a certain ' Mistress Mary Estmond,' with whom were found certain divers capes, altars, chalices, etc., for which she was committed by two Justices of the Peace, ' had appealed directly to the King,' and that the Secretary of State did write a 'letter' in her favour, practically 'over-riding' the laws. It was specifically set forth that a 'Jesuit at large was a danger to the perversion of the King's subjects ; and that heretofore, according to the public statutes, all such were banished on pain of death.' But more strongly still was it insisted upon that both the ' pardon ' and the ' letter ' had been procured by the importunity of ' foreign ' ambassa dors, 'which was of dangerous consequence, to give our subjects any dependence upon them.' The Lord Keeper and the Lord Secretary tried hard to smooth this matter over by rolling it on the late King's promise to the Marquis de Villa Clara, the French Ambassador, the Marquis D'Effiat, and the Duke de Chevereux, his Majesty's kinsman, 'to the end that the Queen might come more easy hither.'2 But both of them declared that it was * much against their wills,' for that ' they hated Popery as well as these pardons.' 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 78, 79. 2 Ibid. pp. 18-20. chap. i. ] DANGERS AND REMEDIES 143 A.D, 1625I But the second part of the Conference, occupied with the King's message in reply to their former Petition of 7th July last, virtually covered all that field, and rendered it unneces sary for them to proceed further on these lines at that time. That was a ' Petition of both Houses for the execution of the laws against Popery, and for advancing True Religion.' It runs out into sixteen heads of ' remedy,' after specifying the principal 'cause' of the increase of Papists, and the ' danger ' in the consequences thereof. As a graphic picture of the times, that Petition demands more than a passing mention. The ' Dangers ' from 'this mischievous increase of Papists ' appear: — '(1) In their desperate ends, being the subversion of both Church and State. ... (2) Their evident and strict dependency upon Foreign princes. ... (3) The opening of a way of popularity to the ambition of any who shall adventure to make himself head of so great a Party.' The principal 'Causes' of this increase, ranged under ' eight particulars,' are illustrated by these four, which may be quoted here: — '(1) Want of due execution of the laws against Jesuits, Seminary Priests, and Popish recusants. . . . (2) The interposing of Foreign princes, on their behalf, by ambassadors and agents. . . . (5) Education of their children in seminaries and houses of Popish religion in Foreign parts. ... (7) The licentious printing and dispersing of Popish and seditious books.' And, in the same way, the ' Remedies ' ' against this out rageous and dangerous disease' may be judged of by these specimens: — '(1) That the youth of this realm be carefully educated by able and religious schoolmasters in the grounds and principles of True Religion. ... (3) That special care be taken to enlarge the Word of God throughout all parts of the dominions ... as being the most powerful means of planting the True Religion and rooting out of the contrary. . . . (4.) That there be strict provision against the transporting of 144 CHARLES PROTESTETH TOO MUCH [book n. ^^ I A.D. 1625 English children to seminaries beyond the seas, and for the recalling of them who are already there placed . . . consider ing that, besides the seducing of your people, great sums of money are yearly expended upon them, to the impoverishing of the kingdom. ... (5) That no Popish Recusant be per mitted to come within tfie Court, unless your Majesty be pleased to call him upon special occasion, agreeable to the Statute of 3 James, c. v. . . . (6) That all laws now in force against Jesuits, Seminary Priests, and others having taken Orders by authority derived from the See of Rome, be put into due execution, . . . and that a speedy and certain day be fixed for their departure out of this realm. (7) That no natural-born subject, or strange Bishops, nor any other, by authority from the See of Rome, shall confer any ecclesiastical Orders, or exercise any ecclesiastical function whatsoever, to wards or upon your Majesty's natural-born subjects within your dominions. ... (11) That present order be taken for disarming all Popish Recusants, legally convicted or justly suspected according to the laws in that behalf.' The Lord Admiral, announcing that 'all was granted,' yet called on Mr. Attorney to read aloud each sentence of the Petition, and then declared in full the King's answer to the same, adding at the close : — ' His Majesty took well their putting him in mind of his care for Religion : indeed, he would have done the same things though they had not petitioned him. Neither did he place this Petition, in this order, as a wheel to draw on other affairs and designs : but leaves them to move in their own spheres, as being of suf ficient voice and weight within themselves.'1 Ah, Charles! it were better not to protest too much. Beware of your Solomon father's fatal gift of king-craft! That was August 9th; and on August 12th the King, perceiving that the Commons were determined not to grant a ' supply ' till they had first secured ' redress of grievances/ 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 20-26. chap. ii. ] WHAT A FALL WAS THERE ! 145 A.D. 1626 J dissolved this Parliament in haste and in disgust. He began thus early to teach them a fatal lesson regarding the word of a King ; and by-and-bye he forced them to master that lesson to the last letter. A new Parliament had to be faced, however, in the beginning of the ensuing year 1626, and the King modestly opened it thus : — ' My Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and you, gentlemen all, of mine own nature, I do not love long speeches, and I know I am not very good to speak much. Therefore I mean to show what I should speak in actions. And therefore I mean to bring in the old custom which many of my predecessors have used before me — which is, that my Lord Keeper should tell you, at large, what I should speak to you in Parliament.'1 Shade of King James, who never tired of hearing himself, what a fall was there ! Is it diffidence ? Or is it a contempt for Parliaments, the beginning of what deepened into an insensate scorn for them and all their proceedings ? A scorn which Parliament learned, alas ! to reciprocate, as Charles discovered to his cost ! The note of battle was again sounded, when the Speaker, Sir Heneage Finch, the Recorder of London, was presented to the King, and managed, while thanking his Majesty for ' his most gracious answer to all their late petitions concern ing religion, and for his proclamation ' commanding Romish Priests and Jesuits to banishment,' to remind Jiim that these were ' the incendiaries that infect the State,' whose ' very entrance into this kingdom is, by a just and provident law, declared to be treason ;' and to freshen his horror of Popery by describing the Gunpowder Plot as 'that matchless con spiracy, the masterpiece of the Devil.'2 Charles was as unfortunate in his aversions as he was in his preferences. He entered into a personal wrangle with his Parliament to disqualify the famous and now aged Sir Edward Coke, on the ground that ' he had been pricked as 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 38. 2 Ibid, vol iii. p. 43. VOL. I. K 146 IMPEACHMENT OF BUCKINGHAM [book ii. La.d. 1626 Sheriff of Buckinghamshire,' and could not therefore serve in the House as ' knight for another county ' — the great lawyer being particularly obnoxious to the Court Party I1 Again he descended into the arena for the protection of George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham, against whom the Commons had been formulating 'charges ;' and, summoning both Houses before him on March 28th, he said : — ' I am come here to show you your errors, and, as I may call it, unparliamentary proceedings.' And then, by command of his Majesty, the Lord Keeper rated them in the following terms : — ' Never any King was more loving of his people. . . . Never was any King more jealous of his honour, nor more sensible of the neglect and contempt of his royal rights. . . . The express and final command of his Majesty is, that you will yield obedience, and cease this unparliamentary inquisition. . . . Go together . . . and, by Saturday next, return your final answer what further supply you will add . . . and that without conditions !' The King, rising in courage, protested at the close of the Lord Keeper's speech : — ' I pray you, be not deceived. It is not a Parliamentary way ; nor it is not a way to deal with a King! . . . Remember that Parliaments are altogether in my power . . . therefore as I find the fruits of them good or evil, they are to continue, or not to be. . . . Encourage me, therefore, to go on with Parliaments.'2 Of the twelve articles charged by the Earl of Bristol against Buckingham, six at least are designed to prove that he was ' Popishly affected.' The first charges him with ' con spiring with the Ambassador of Spain, in 1622, to carry the Prince into Spain, to the end he might be instructed in the Romish Religion, and thereby subvert the True Religion established in England.'3 The Commons appointed eight of their number as ' managers of the impeachment ' before the Lords. Two of these made strong plea ' that the person of 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 45. 2 Ibid. pp. 56-60. 3 Ibid. p. 86. chap. ii. ] MEMBERS SENT TO THE TOWER 147 A.D. 1626 J the Duke should be committed to safe custody,' awaiting the issue of his trial. Next morning, early, Charles appeared in the House, May 1 ith, and announced that he ' had taken order for punishing certain insolent speeches spoken there yesterday.'1 This means that he had seized two eminent Members of the House, Sir Dudley Diggs and Sir John Elliot, and sent them prisoners to the Tower ! The Commons at once flamed into high debate. On May 12th they put on record that 'this House shall do no more business till they are righted in their privileges.' Charles had made another mischievous blunder. Both had to be released. And on May 16th, having delivered their defence, the Commons ' purged them of all fault,' and recorded their finding, nem. con., in these words: — 'That they have in nothing exceeded the com mission given them by this House.'2 A similar folly was perpetrated in the House of Lords. The Earl of Arundel fell under Charles's displeasure, no one seems to knows for what — possibly for some proposal about the marriage of the Earl's son Maltravers, that was dis agreeable to the King — and he summarily sent him to the Tower, even during the sitting of Parliament. The Lords were now ablaze. In vain the Lord Treasurer explained, 'that it was for a misdemeanour which was personal to his Majesty . . . and had no relation to matters of Parliament.'3 4 Petitions ' from the Lords were followed by ' Answers ' from the King ; this was about ten times repeated, the game gathering in fire as the players grew in excitement ; till at the last they too recorded their resolution — ' that all business be suspended till the Earl of Arundel is released.' On June 8th he was accordingly released. And the King again lost heavily, despite the Earl's 'humble thanks for his Majesty's gracious favour.'4 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 102-103. 2 Ibid. p. 122-124. 3 Ibid. vol. ii. p. 125. * Ibid. pp. 125-132. 148 THE EARL OF BRISTOL [book ii. La.d. 1626 Nor did the King gain by so conspicuously taking sides against John Digby, the Earl of Bristol, and urging on his ' Impeachment for High Treason,' even though the popular ear was tickled by giving the trial an anti-Popish colour. It was charged, for instance, ' that the said Earl, by letters unto his late Majesty and otherwise, often counselled and persuaded his said Majesty to set at liberty Jesuits and Priests of the Romish Religion, which, according to the good and religious and politic laws of this kingdom, were im prisoned or restrained.'1 Nay, further, 'that he endeavoured falsely and traitorously to persuade the Prince, while in Spain, to change his religion for the sake of the Infanta . . . and so to become obedient to the usurped authority of the Pope of Rome.' 2 And when at length, on May 6th, the Earl appeared in his own defence, and forced Mr. Attorney to admit ' that the King himself, out of his own mouth, had given directions for the charge against him,' he scored tremendously against Charles by beginning with these lofty and dignified words of retort : — ' I will not contest with my King ; neither doth it beseem me so to do. Neither esteem I my life or my fortunes so much as to save them by contesting with my Sovereign. And therefore I would make no reply nor answer, were it not that my honour and my religion are jointly questioned with my life ! '3 All this could have only one issue. The King dissolved the Parliament in rage and disgust. The Lords pleaded for a longer session, but Charles shouted to them, according to Saunderson, ' No ! Not a minute!' It was June 15th; and on that very day the Earl of Arundel was ' confined' by the King's order to the walls of his own house; and the Earl of Bristol was ' imprisoned ' in the Tower.4 Charles published a long ' Declaration of his Reasons for dissolving this and the foregoing Parliaments.' The Commons published an 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 83. 2 Ibid. p. 85. 8 Ibid. p. 92. 4 Ibid. p. 193. chap. ii. ] GRIEVANCES OF THE NATION 149 A.D. 1 627 J ' Intended Remonstrance,' which they had purposed to address to the King ere Parliament was dissolved ; ¦ and Charles theron published a fiery ' Proclamation ' for the burning of every copy of the said Remonstrance, ' on pain of his indignation and high displeasure.' 1 Though some of these events are rather aside from our main inquiry, yet it seemed absolutely necessary to place them thus in graphic outline before the reader. He sees now the temperament of the King. He feels the pulse of the nation beating in its Parliament. The scenes that follow will be readily understood, even though we scarcely glance at the great Constitutional struggle, and only trace out the thread of Popish concession that is inextricably interwoven with every step that King or Parliament may take. About a year passed by, and the attempt to raise a revenue, without Parliamentary sanction, by ' loan money,' ' benevolences,' and other ' exactions,' had brought the nation to the brink of rebellion. At last, Sir Richard Cotton, by a weighty speech in Council,2 persuaded the King to call a Parliament. It assembled on 17th March 1627, and it was dissolved on the 10th March of the following year — being, of all Charles's Parliaments except the last, the most critical, both in his history and in that of the nation. It launched out upon the ' Grievances of the Nation,' and insisted upon a promise of redress before it would vote any supply.3 Sir Robert Philips indignantly complained 'that religion was made vendible by commission ; and men, for pecuniary annual rates, " dispensed " withal ; whereby Papists may, without fear of the laws, practise idolatry.'4 Sir Thomas Wentworth submitted a motion claiming — ' For our persons, freedom of them from imprisonment and from employments of them abroad against our own consents, contrary to the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 194-207. 2 Ibid. pp. 207-217. 3 Ibid. p. 230. 4 Ibid. p. 232. ISO POPISH RECUSANTS AGAIN [book n. La.d. 1627 ancient customs of this kingdom ; for our goods, that no levies may be made but by Parliament' x But we must hasten on to March 26th, on which day the Commons by request of the Upper House met with the Lords and held high ' conference ' on the subject of petitioning the King to enforce the ' Laws against Recusants.' Mr. Secretary Cook, appointed to speak for the Commons, approved of the petition which the Lords had prepared, 'from the beginning to the end every word,' and praised 'their happy pen,' presenting only a few 'additions' that might give it pith and point. ' That viperous generation (the Papists),' says he, 'as your Lordships justly styled them, do at ease with tooth and nail essay to rend the bowels of their mother. ... A Hierarchy have they already established in competition with that of your Lordships, our learned and grave fathers. . . . They have a Bishop, con secrated by the Pope, with his subordinate officers of all kinds. . . . Neither are these nominal or titular alone ; but these all execute their jurisdictions, keep Courts, and determine ecclesiastical causes. . . . And, which is an argument of more consequence, they keep ordinary intelli gence by their agents at Rome, and hold correspondence with Nuncios and Cardinals both at Brussels and in France. . . But the Regulars are more active and dangerous still, and have taken deep root, . . . nay, even at this time they intend to hold a concurrent Assembly with this Parliament ! '- At length, on March 31st, the 'Petition of both Houses concerning Popish Recusants ' was presented to the King ; and immediately thereafter his Majesty's answer was read to Parliament, practically acceding to every single request. Glance at the main heads of this petition,. eight in all, as a perfect reflex of the times: — '(1) Give continual life and motion to all those laws that stand in force against Jesuits, Seminary Priests, and all that have taken Orders by authority 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 237. 2 Ibid. p. 247. chap, n.] PERFECT REFLEX OF THE TIMES 151 a.d. 1627 1 of the See of Rome, by exacting a more due and serious exe cution of the same. ... (2) Command a surer and straiter watch to be kept in and over your Majesty's ports and havens, and commit the care and charge of searching of ships, for the discovery and apprehension as well of Jesuits and Seminary Priests brought in, as of children and young students sent over beyond the seas to suck in the poison of rebellion and superstition, unto men of approved fidelity and religion. ... (3) Considering these dreadful dangers, never to be forgotten, that did involve your Majesty's sacred person ( = the Gunpowder Plot), . . . give speedy command for the present putting in practice those laws that prohibit all Popish Recusants to come to the Court, or within ten miles of London, as also that confine them to the distance of five miles from their dwelling-houses. . . . (4) Whereas, infinite sums of money have . . . been extracted out of the Recusants ... by colour of composition, and a small pro portion of the same returned unto your Majesty's coffers, . . . emboldening Popish recusants to entertain Massing Priests into their private houses, and to exercise all the mimique rites of their gross superstition, ... be graciously pleased to dissolve this mystery of iniquity, patched up of colourable leases, contracts, and pre-conveyances, being but masks on the one part . . . and stales on the other. . . . (5) That as the persons of ambassadors from Foreign Princes, and their houses, be free for the exercise of their own religion, — so their houses may not be made free chapels and sanctuaries unto your Majesty's subjects, Popishly affected, to hear Mass and to participate in all other rites and cere monies of that superstition, to the great offence of Almighty God, and scandal of your Majesty's people, loyally and religiously affected. ... (6) That no place of authority and command within any of your counties — or ships — be com mitted to Popish Recusants or non-communicants ... or persons justly suspected. ... (7) That all your Majesty's 152 RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES [book n. La.d. 1627 Judges, Justices, and ministers of justice . . . may . . . not only be commanded to put into speedy execution these laws which stand in force against Jesuits, Seminary Priests, and Popish Recusants, but ... to give a strict and true account of their proceedings unto the Lord Keeper ... to be presented unto your Majesty. . . . And (8) — For fair and clear eradica tion of all Popery for the future, and for the breeding and nursing up of a holy generation, . . . the training and educating of the children of Popish Recusants in the grounds of our Holy Religion . . . will be of more power and force to unite your people unto you . . . than all pecuniary mulcts and penalties.'1 By studying pages such as these, all the drifts and currents of the national life are laid open to our gaze. And we leave the after pages to reveal the spirit in which Charles could say, — ' As for the Petition, I answer in general that I like it well ; and will use these as well as other means for the maintenance and propagation of the Religion wherein I have lived and do resolve to die.'2 We reluctantly pass in silence the great debates, lasting many days and leading up to conferences with the Lords, on the ' Rights and Liberties of the Subject' They arose as a ' grievance ' founded on the King's late ' confinements ' and ' imprisonments ' of his people. They ended in a historical Petition of Right, which was argued into shape by such men as the ' voluble and eloquent ' Sir Dudley Diggs ; the ' grave and learned lawyer,' Mr. Littleton ; the ' great antiquary and pregnant man,' Mr. Selden ; and Sir Edward Coke, 'that famous reporter of the law.' 3 All through the months of April, May, and June, the Records of Parliament are on fire with this subject. The King tried to end the matter by a message on April 28th, 'that he holdeth Magna Charta and the other Statutes insisted upon for the subjects' liberty to be in force ; and 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 248-253. 2 Ibid. p. 248. 3 Ibid. p. 260. chap. ii. | THE PETITION OF RIGHT 153 A.D. 1628J that he will maintain all the subjects in the just freedom of their persons and safety of their estates ; ' assuring them that 'they shall find as much security in his Majesty's royal word and promise, as in the strength of any law that can be made.'1 Being challenged by message after message whether they would take the King's word or no, the Commons at last replied: — May ist, — 'Your Royal word is very noble,' etc., etc., ' but we think fit to secure our Rights and Liberties by way of bill.'2 The King haughtily re joined, ordering them, ' without further replies, messages, or other unnecessary delays, to do in the matter of supply that which they meant to do speedily.' 3 The House, resuming the debate, ' locked its doors and refused to allow any Member to leave ' till it recorded its decision. Sir Edward Coke said, — 'The King's answer is very gracious. But what is the law of the realm ? That is the question. . . Let us put up the Petition of Right. Not that I distrust the King : but that I cannot take his trust, except in the Parliamentary way.' 4 This Petition of Right was the mother of many far- reaching events, and its early history and later developments are a fascinating study. Here, for the understanding of succeeding scenes, we cannot pass on without at least these fragmentary notes. Conference after conference was held be twixt the Lords and Commons. Message after message was sent from the King, chiefly the 'Five Gracious Messages;'5 and finally the 'Letter' from his Majesty to the House of Lords 'touching the Liberty of the Subject,' on 12th May 1628.6 The drift of all was simply this, — the King appealed to them ' to trust his word ; ' they determined to have it in a statute. The letter, being communicated to the Commons, they simply ' laid it aside ' and went on with their petition. The whole House indorsed the declaration of Sir Thomas 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 331. 2 Ibid. p. 346. s Ibid. p. 348. 4 Ibid. p. 348. 5 Ibid. p. 351. 6 Ibid. p. 352. ir4 NO SAVING CLAUSES ("book ii ^ La.D. 1628 Wentworth : — ' It is indeed a Letter of Grace ; but the people will only like of that which is done in a Parliamentary way. Besides, the debate of it would spend much time ; neither was it directed to the House of Commons. Further, the Petition of Right would clear all mistakes ; for,' said he, 'some give it out as if the House went about to pinch the King's prerogative.' J Many 'alterations' and 'additions' were discussed for days on end — one section guarding the ' Sovereign power,' the other securing the ' Liberties of the Nation.' Sir Edward Coke warned the House thus: — 'Take we heed what we yield unto. Magna Charta is such a fellow, that he will have no " Sovereign." ' Sir Thomas Wentworth protested : — 'Our laws are not acquainted with any "Sovereign power.'" And the learned Selden added : — ' In Magna Charta there are no such clauses, "saving" the Sovereign power.'2 Finally, on the 23d May, all conferences and debates having failed, the Lords gave up their proposed 'saving clauses,' and concurred without qualification in the Petition of Right But they insisted on passing in their own House, in order to ' clear themselves from any design to restrain the just prerogative of the Crown,' a solemn ' declaration ' to the effect that ' their intention was not to lessen or to impeach anything which, by the Oath of Supremacy, they had sworn to assist and defend.' 3 Sir Edward Coke, in presenting the Commons' message of thanks to the Lords, rejoined that this ' petition which they were now to deliver enshrined the true Liberties of the Subjects of England, and a true exposi tion of the Great Charter — not great for the words thereof, but in respect of the weight of the matter contained therein, the Liberties of the People.' 4 On 29th May it was presented to the King by both Houses, with a respectful but firm request that he would 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 353. 2 Ibid. p. 357, 358. 8 Ibid. p. 371. * Ibid. p. 372. chap, ii.] 'RELIGION AND ALLEGIANCE' 155 a.d. 1 628 J JD ' answer it in full Parliament assembled.' On 2d June the King did so, twitting them ' that he had not taken so many days in answering as they had spent weeks in framing it.1 1 But the 'answer' beginning, 'the King willeth that right be done according to the laws and customs of the realm,' had too many qualifying tones, such as 'just' liberties, and above all, represented the King as bound chiefly by 'his own prerogative.'2 Therefore the Commons returned to their own House, and, declaring the King's answer 'too scant,' resumed discussion of their ' grievances.' A keener edge was now given to the struggle by the book of a certain Dr. Roger Manwaring, entitled Religion and Allegiance. He had rushed into this crisis as a Court preacher, and publicly argued ' that the King's royal com mand, imposing taxes and loans without consent of Parlia ment, did so far bind the conscience of the subjects of his Kingdom, that they could not refuse the payment without peril of damnation.'3 When he was impeached by the Commons, the King tartly replied, ' I give him no thanks for giving me only my due,' — and left him to his fate. The points charged against Dr. Manwaring, and pre sented in a 'declaration,' and a great speech by Mr. Pym to the Lords were these: — '(1) Teaching that his Majesty is not bound to keep and observe the good laws and customs of this realm, concerning the Rights and Liberties of the Subject. ... (2) That those of his Majesty's loving subjects who refused the loan aftermentioned . . . did therein offend against the law of God and against his Majesty's supreme authority. ... (3) That the authority of Parliament is not necessary for the raising of aids and subsidies.' And the Commons demanded 'that he should be put to the answer.' 4 In vain Charles sent a message to the Lords to 'ad- 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 374. 2 Ibid. p. 377. 3 Ibid. p. 379. * Ibid. p. 388-400. 156 FINAL ANSWER OF CHARLES [book n. 3 La.d. 1628 journ;' and to the Commons, fixing the day on which the session must 'close,' and ordering them to proceed with 'supply,' but not 'to meddle with affairs of State.' They deliberately held on their way, and finally sentenced Dr. Manwaring 'to fine, and imprisonment in the Fleet, and suspension for three years, and disablement from preaching again at the Court,' etc.1 That was on June 14th ; but on June 2 ist, the doctor, 'resolved to fight some other day,' made most abject ' submission ' on his knees at the bar of both Houses ; and before the end of the same year, in spite of Parliamentary censure, had his reward in being appointed ' Rector of Stanford Rivers in Essex, as well as Rector of St. Giles in the Fields.' 2 During all these days, debates had been hotly carried on regarding the King's scant answer to the Petition of Right ; and at last, on June 7th, Charles, driven to his wit's end, determined to make a clean breast of it, with whatever motive, and grant unconditionally everything they had desired. The petition was again solemnly read to the King in the presence of both Houses, and the 'full and satisfactory ' answer was given by' His Majesty in these historical words : — ' Soil Droit fait, comme il est desire! The King protested that it was no more than his first answer meant, 'that the People's liberties strengthen the King's prerogative, and that the King's prerogative is to defend the People's liberties.' The Commons, however, had their own way of looking at things, and received this second answer 'with a great and joyful applause ; ' returning to their own House, Rushworth says, 'with unspeakable joy,' and proceeding at once to hasten the 'subsidies.'3 But when, notwith standing all this gratulation, the Commons, in forwarding their * Bill for Tonnage and Poundage,' found occasion 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 415. 2 Ibid. pp. 430, 435. 3 Ibid. pp. 409, 410. chap. ii. 1 ANALYSIS OF PETITION OF RIGHTS 157 a.d. 1628 J J/ to send a 'remonstrance' as to imposition 'without Act of Parliament,' and as to limiting them to ' too short a time ' for passing the bill, Charles lost all patience, and on June 26th prorogued the Parliament 'in disgust'1 Ere we leave these scenes, let us note the substance of this much-debated PETITION OF RIGHT, for all these things have a very intimate, though in a sense indirect, bearing on our main theme, British History in relation to Papal Claims, — the King now largely representing Papal Claims under the guise of Royal Prerogatives. It is entitled, ' the Petition exhibited to his Majesty by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, concerning divers Rights and Liberties of the Subjects.' It sets forth the statutes, according to which ' no tallage or aid shall be laid or levied by the King or his heirs in this realm, without the goodwill and assent' of the repre sentatives of the people ; and ' no person shall be compelled to make any loans to the King against his will/ and ' none should be charged by any charge or imposition called a benevolence;' by which good laws the subjects have inherited 'this freedom, that they cannot be compelled to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge, not set by common consent in Parliament' It specifies the breaches of these statutes, lately per petrated by divers 'commissions;' and then proceeds to set forth that, as against ' the Great Charter of the Liberties of England, even worse things have been done of late, not only against the goods, but against the persons of his Majesty's loyal people, despite the statutory words of Magna Charta, "that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned, or be dis seized of his freeholds or liberties or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land." ' 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 431-434. 158 FOUNDATIONS OF LIBERTY [book n. J La.d. 1629 Subjects had been imprisoned, and kept in prison, 'in defiance of Habeas Corpus and of all due process of law.' After specific recital of such breaches of statute, the Petition prays his most excellent Majesty that no freeman hereafter should be ' compelled ' or ' confined ' or ' imprisoned ' in the ways indicated, ' without consent of Parliament ; ' that no 'commissions for proceeding by martial law' be issued to any person or persons whatsoever ; and that all these things are claimed as ' their Rights and Liberties, according to the laws and statutes of this realm.' 1 Thus laboriously, step by step, never flinching when the tug of battle came, our fathers won and established their Constitutional Liberties, first as against Popes, and now as against Kings — the King, even when apparently fighting for his own hand, being manifestly swayed by the Popish influences behind him. Otherwise this episode need not here have detained us. Parliament assembled again on 20th January 1629 : the ten weeks that followed brought the final crash betwixt it and the King, and the question of CONSTITUTIONAL Liberty for Britain, as against absolute despotism in Church and State, was thrown once for all into the arena where nations lose their life or save it. On January 2 1st, the Commons were instantly in the thick of the fight — 'con sidering in what things the Liberty of the Subject had been invaded since their last session, against the Petition of Right ; ' and also closely investigating ' how it came that the Petition itself had been published, but not with the final answer, only with the first answer of the King that gave ' no satisfaction.' 2 And in these debates, as involving the very foundations of our freedom, Pym, Elliot, and Selden, are again to the front, grappling with all forms of Absolutism. On January 26th, the Bill of Tonnage and Poundage being proposed by Mr. Secretary Cooke, the Commons at 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 374-377. 2 Ibid. pp. 435-436. chap. ii. 1 GRIEVANCES IN RELIGION 1 59 a.d. i 629 J once raised the question of ' Grievances in Religion.'1 Here the shoe most keenly pinched ; and this debate called forth the whole strength on either side, it being felt that all the other issues were focussed here to a burning point. Mr. Sherland struck the keynote thus : — ' We have a Religion worth loving with all our hearts. It was sealed with the blood of martyrs, . . . and now to have our noses wiped of this would grieve my heart' Mr. Rouse continued the fray : — ' We have considered the Petition of Rights, and the violations of it, and with good reasons, for it concerns our goods, liberties, and lives. But there is a right of an higher nature, that preserves us far greater things, ... a right of Religion derived to us from the King of Kings, continued to us by the Kings of this kingdom, and enacted by laws in this place, . . . and this right, in the name of this nation, I this day claim, and desire that there may be a deep and serious consideration of the violations of the same.'2 And lest any one may doubt his references, he proceeds : — ' I desire, first, it may be considered, what new paintings are laid on the old face of the Whore of Babylon, to make her more lovely, and to draw more suitors to her. And I desire that it may be considered how the See of Rome doth eat into our Religion, and fret into the banks and walls of it, I mean the laws and statutes of this realm.' 2 - Pym, Sir F. Seymour, Sir R. Philips, Sir Walter Earle, Sir John Elliot, and the best men of the House kindled their grandest logic in this debate, brushing aside the King's message about giving 'precedence to Supply.' At length, on 29th January, they recorded the mind of the House in this resolution : — 'We the Commons, now in Parliament assembled, do claim, profess, and avow for truth, the sense of the Articles of Religion, which were established in Parliament in the reign of our late Queen Elizabeth, which by public Act of the Church of England and by the general and concurrent 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 443. 2 Ibid. p. 444. 160 OLIVER CROMWELL [book n. La.d. 1629 exposition of the writers of our Church have been delivered to us ; and we do reject the sense of the Jesuits and Arminians, wherein they differ from us.' J Now, the spirit in which this was passed and received may be judged infallibly from the language of Sir John Elliot, in enforcing the same, as one of the wisest and strongest leaders of the House. Glancing scornfully at the Popish Party, as ' masters of ceremonies ' and labouring to intrude ' new ' ceremonies into the Church, he says : — ' Some cere monies are useful : give me leave to join in one that I hold necessary and commendable, that at the repetition of the Creed, we should stand up to testify the resolution of our hearts that we would defend that Religion we profess. In some Churches, they did not only stand upright with their bodies, but with their swords drawn. And, if cause were to defend our Prince, Country, and Religion, I hope we should draw our swords against all opposers ! ' 2 It was in connection with the debates that followed — the House sitting as a ' Committee for Religion/ and discussing the granting of 'pardons' to such men as Montague and Man waring, already referred to — that OLIVER CROMWELL first appeared upon the floor of Parliament, so far as these records show. He told of a certain Dr. Alablaster (? !), who had preached flat Popery at St. Paul's Cross ; and that his Diocesan, the Bishop of Winchester, Dr. Neile, has com manded him to preach nothing to the contrary ; the same Bishop, who had preferred Dr. Manwaring to a rich living, though so justly censured in this House.' 3 Sir Philip Warwick says of Cromwell, at a later day — 'Very ordinarily apparelled, for it was a plain cloth suit, which seemed to have been made by an ill country tailor. . . . His stature was of a good size, his sword stuck close to his side, his countenance swollen and reddish, his voice sharp and untunable, and his eloquence full of fervour. . . . Yet I 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 454. 2 Ibid. p. 453. 3 Ibid. p. 464. chap. ii. "I < THAT SLOVEN ! ' l6l a.d. 1629 J live to see this very gentleman, by multiplied and good successes, and by real though usurped power (having had a better tailor and more converse among good company) in my own eyes appear of a great and majestic deportment and comely presence/ O Sir Philip, thou 'thoughtest thyself a courtly young gentleman/ and ' valuedst thyself much upon thy good clothes ; ' but more than tailors had to do with the making of Oliver into a majestic presence ! Further on, just before the Civil War burst, a better reading of the horoscope was given by Hampden to Lord Digby, ' going down the Parliament stairs ' behind Cromwell, who had spoken ' warmly ' that day : — ' That slovenly fellow/ said Hampden, ' which you see before us, if we should ever come to have a breach with the King (which God forbid !), I say, that sloven in such a case will be one of the greatest men in England.' Archbishop Williams,, too, at Oxford, warned Charles that Cromwell was 'the most dangerous enemy' he had — 'for though he is at this time of mean rank and use, yet he will climb higher.' Finally John Maidstone, also a member of the same Parliament, describes Cromwell thus : — ' Well compact and strong; stature under six feet; head, both storehouse and shop, vast treasury of natural parts; temper, exceedingly fiery, but the flame kept down for most part, or soon allayed with his moral endowments : naturally compassionate to distress, even effeminately so ; a heart, with little room for any fear, but that of God himself, whereof a large proportion ; yet exceeding in tenderness towards sufferers ; a larger soul, I think, hath seldom dwelt in a house of clay ! ' 1 But we must return to the House, sitting as a Committee for Religion. Pym is in the chair, and Sir Walter Earle declares : — ' If we speak not now, we may for ever hold our peace. Besides the Queen's Mass, there are two other 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 464, 465. VOL. I. L 1 62 HEADS OF ARTICLES FOR RELIGION [book 11. La.d. 1629 Masses daily in the Queen's Court ; so that, with the out facing Jesuits, it is common to say, Will you go to Mass ? or, Have you been at Mass at Somersethouse? There are five hundred at a time seen coming from Mass ! ' 1 On another day, the debate still raging on, Sir Thomas Hobby brought up a ' Report regarding the staying of the execution of the laws against Popish Priests and Recusants.' The keeper of Newgate 'had received ten persons so charged; ' one had been condemned, but execution was stayed by warrant Lorn the Lord Chief Justice ; the rest did refuse the Oath of Allegiance, but by his Majesty's orders they had been delivered up, and, on surety, had been discharged.'2 ' I wish/ retorted Sir Nicholas Rich, ' that the bonds of the sureties for these Jesuits were produced, that we might by examination find out the whole pack of their benefactors and maintainers ! ' 3 The very 'Judges' were dragged into the conflict, and their 'Answers concerning the stay of execution of Popish Priests' were gravely reported upon by Selden.4 Finally, on 25th February, the ' Heads of Articles for Religion' were submitted for the approval of the House. This document brought the great crash, and it demands more than a moment's attention. It will be felt and seen by every student of its contents, that concessions to Popery, overt or covert, were at the heart of the whole affair. They call to mind ' the humble Declaration of last session as to the great danger to Church and State by divers courses and practices, tending to the change and in novation of Religion ; ' and declare, ' what they then feared they do now sensibly feel.' They then make-believe ' that the King's princely wisdom and goodness as to their Holy Religion ' is ' frustrated through the unfaithfulness and carelessness of his Ministers;' and 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 467, 468. * Ibid. p. 473. 8 Ibid. p. 475. i Ibid, p- 476. CHAP. II. "1 A.D. 1629J 'DANGERS AND THEIR CAUSES 163 protest ' that they cannot do any work more acceptable than to make known what may conduce to the preservation of God's Religion, in great peril now to be lost, and the safety and tranquillity of his Majesty and his kingdoms now threatened.' Under the head of ' Dangers/ they specify amongst other things : — '(1) Those from abroad, e.g. a mighty and pre valent party . . . aiming at the subversion of all the Protestant Churches in Christendom ... by whose victorious and successful enterprise, the churches in Germany, France, and elsewhere, are either already ruined, or weak and miserable ; ' and ' (2) These in his Majesty's own dominions, e.g. in Scotland, the stirs and insolencies of the Popish Party having already not a little disquieted that famous Church ; ... in Ireland, now almost overspread with Popery, swarming with Friars, Priests, and Jesuits, and superstitious persons of all sorts, whose practice is daily to seduce his Majesty's subjects from their allegiance and to cause them to adhere to his enemies ; . . . lastly, here in England, where ... in some counties there are two thousand Recusants, and all the other Papists ready to revolt. . . . kindling a fire of division in the very bowels of the State. . . . Our Religion is thus being suppressed abroad, disturbed in Scotland, lost in Ireland, undermined and out-dared in England ! ' 1 Amongst the specified ' Causes/ these, along with others, are ' instanced in : ' — ' Suspension or negligence in the execu tion of the laws against Popery ; . . . stay of proceedings against Jesuits and Recusants ; . . . publishing and defend ing Popery in books and sermons, without punishment ; . . . new ceremonies . . . and injunctions, without authority, e.g. erecting altars, changing the position of the communion table in the chancel, adorning it with candlesticks, making obeisance by bowing thereto, . . . setting up pictures, lights, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 483, 484. 164 DANGERS AND REMEDIES rB00K "• ^ I A.D. I629 and images in churches, crossing, and praying towards the East; . . . false and counterfeit conformity of Papists, not only thereby evading the law, but obtaining places of trust and authority ; . . . suppressing and restraining of the orthodox doctrine, contained in the Articles of Religion, of Parliament 13 Elizabeth Favouring and pre ferring of Papistical and Arminian advocates, . . . and the discountenancing and hindering of those who are orthodox, i. e. according to the Common Prayer, the Homilies, the Catechism, in the sense of Bishop Jewell's works, the resolu tions of all the Clergy in 1 595, the suffrage of the British divines sent by James to Dort, and the uniform consent of all our writers published by authority.' 1 And under the head of 'Remedies/ these, along with others, are suggested : — ' Due execution of the laws against Papists ; . . . exemplary punishments upon teachers, pub lishers, and maintainers of Popish opinions, and practising of superstitious ceremonies ; . . . the orthodox doctrine of our Church, to be freely taught, according as it hath been hitherto generally received, without alteration or innovation ; . . . that some good order may be taken for the licensing of books ; . . . Bishoprics and other preferments to be conferred, with advice of the Privy Council, upon learned, pious, and orthodox men ; . . . and that competent means be provided to maintain a godly and able Minister in every Parish Church of this kingdom.' 2 No sooner were those Articles read than the King im peratively commanded both Houses to adjourn till Monday, 2d March. On which day, again, the House being assembled, and prayers offered, the Speaker delivered another message from the King commanding him to adjourn 'till Tuesday come seven-night following.' Several Members protested, that it was not the Speaker's function to deliver any such command ; and Sir John Elliot, in particular, first 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 485, 486. 2 Ibid pp. 486, 487. chap. ii. "1 THE SPEAKER REFUSING TO OBEY 165 A.D. I629 -1 hit the nail on the head in these words : — ' We have fixed our eyes not upon the actors, the Jesuites and Priests, but upon their masters, those that are in authority ; thence it cometh, we suffer, — the fear of them makes those interrup tions ; ' and then, secondly, he charged the Lord Treasurer Weston, as being ' the great enemy of the Commonwealth, both for the innovation of Religion, and invasion of our Liberties ; building on the grounds laid by his master, the Duke of Buckingham, they going about to break Parlia ments, lest Parliaments should break them.' 1 Therefore the House, ignoring the Royal Message, went on ' to settle some things it thought convenient ; and then it would satisfy the King.' On which, Sir John Elliot, pro ceeding against the Lord Treasurer 'in the business of Tunnage and Poundage/ produced a remonstrance, which was to be submitted to the King, protesting, in brief, ' that the receiving of tunnage and poundage and other impositions, not granted by Parliament, is a breach of the fundamental liberties of this kingdom, and contrary to your Majesty's royal answer to the Petition of Right' 2 The clerk refused to read it, as also did the Speaker ; but Sir John himself read it aloud to the House. Nay, when the time came, the Speaker refused to put it to the vote, declaring that he had 'his Majesty's command to rise when the message was delivered,' and making to leave the Chair as he spake. But Mr. Hollis seized him and held him in his seat, swearing, ' God's wounds ! He should sit still, till it pleased them to rise.' Selden rebuked the Speaker very solemnly for ' refusing to serve the House, under any colour ; ' but he still ' refused to propose the business, with extremity of weeping and supplicatory orations, that he durst not sin against the express command of his Sovereign.' Wherefore, since neither advice nor threats could prevail, Mr. Hollis, by authority, read aloud certain Articles of 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 487. 2 Ibid. pp. 488-490. 1 66 THE COMMONS DEFYING THE KING [book 11. La.d. 1629 Protestation, each When read being 'allowed with a loud voice by the House.' The first declared him a 'capital enemy' of this Kingdom and Commonwealth, 'whoever shall bring in innovation in Religion, or by favour seek to introduce or extend Popery ... or other opinions differing from the true and orthodox Church.' The second declared the same of ' whosoever shall counsel or advise the taking or levying of the subsidies of tunnage and poundage, not being granted by Parliament, or shall be an actor or instrument therein.' And the third deliberately proclaimed, in order to strengthen weak knees : — ' If any merchant, or other person whatsoever, shall voluntarily yield or pay the said subsidies of tunnage and poundage, not being granted by Parliament, he shall likewise be reputed a betrayer of the liberty of England, and an enemy to the same.' x The House had now continued sitting ' for two hours;' and the King, seeing that his message to adjourn was despised, sent an officer to ' bring the Sergeant and his Mace' — the removal of which would have broken up the sitting. But the House ' locked the door, took the key from the Sergeant, and intrusted it to one of its own Members.' Thereon the King sent Black Rod, to call the Commons to meet his Majesty in the Upper House. But the Commons declined to receive him, and a message was sent for the Captain of the Guards to 'force the door.' And this was only prevented by the House itself adjourning, of its own accord, having finished the work it had determined to do. On the day of the adjourned meeting, 10th March 1629, the King at once 'dissolved the Parliament in person,' declaring explicitly that he did so on account of ' the dis obedient carriage of the Lower House/ not laying blame on all equally, but ' only some evil-disposed persons, some vipers amongst them.' Quite in harmony with this spirit, the 'King's Declaration of the Causes' of Dissolution was 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 491. chap. ii. ] THE MAKING OF OUR CONSTITUTION 167 A.D. 1629J immediately published, beginning with the haughty re minder : — ' Princes are not bound to give account of their actions, but to God alone.' 1 The struggle that now ensued is one of the most intensely interesting in all our British History ; and through it, and the consequences that flowed from it, we can trace step by step the Making of our Constitution. But, for our present inquiry, it is only indirectly, and not directly, relevant. The absolute claims of Charles and of the courtiers were inspired by and were in the interests of the Popish Party ; and, had he won, it is morally certain, almost demonstrably certain, that the Papacy would have had every concession renewed again, and would have been enthroned, virtually, if not statutorily, within these kingdoms. Still, for all that, the Pope was not openly engaged in the fray, nor his abettors either ; they fought from behind the mask of the Royal Prerogative ; and, therefore, we must hasten through the remaining stages of this era, with only a note here and there to mark the mile stones that we pass. Parliament having been dismissed with every possible contempt, Charles and his minions grasped the reins of absolute power, and ruled for more than eleven years with out any Parliament, as a sheer and unmitigated despotism. The leading advocates of the Liberties of Parliaments as against Royal Prerogative were summarily prnished, or were bribed by high office to the King's side.2 Hollis and Elliot and Hobart, on defending their conduct before the Privy Council, were committed to the Tower to be tried by the Star Chamber — an irresponsible and unconstitutional politi cal inquisition. Sir John Elliot, ' demurring to the authority of the King's Bench to review what was said in Parliament/ was sent to prison 'during his Majesty's pleasure/ and ruinously fined.3 The infamous Ship-Money began to be exacted in 1634 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 491-504. 2 Ibid. p. 504. 2 Ibid. p. 518. 168 GRIEVANCES AND SUPPLIES [book ii. Ia.d. 1640 — ' a writ being issued to every Sheriff to supply a ship of war, and send it stored and filled up, on such a day to such a place ; ' 1 but with the writ, a letter of instructions ' that instead of a ship, he should levy upon his country such a sum of money, and return the same to the Treasury of the Navy for his Majesty's use.' Whereon ensued, after three years or so, the refusal of John Hampden to pay his share, the lawsuit against him by the King in the Exchequer Chamber before all the judges of England, and the technical condemnation but moral victory of the defendant2 During these same years, Charles's two most capable instruments had been trying their best to tyrannise in his name — Strafford in Ireland, and Laud not in person but by his agents in Scotland. And about 1638, we find the Scots practically in rebellion, cursing ' Laud's Liturgy/ swearing ' Solemn League and Covenant/ and summing up all their claims in the twofold cry — ' a Free Parliament of the Nation, and a Free General Assembly of the Church.' On April 13th, 1640, Charles has to undergo the humilia tion of facing another Parliament, in order to deal with 'the mutinous behaviour of these Scots.' 3 But no sooner do the Members take their seats than they are flooded with ominous petitions from county after county, — against Ship-Money, against Monopolies, against Star Chamber, etc., etc. 4 The Commons insist upon dealing with ' Grievances before they grant Supply.' 5 The King in the House of Lords calls that ' putting the cart before the horse/ and the Lords recommend the granting of supply first. The Commons flare up again, and declare that interference to be a 'breach of their pri vileges.' Message after message came from the King, ordering them 'to hasten supply/ and at length, on 5th May, to the dismay of the whole nation, Charles suddenly dissolved this Parliament also.6 1 Hansard s P. H. vol. ii. p. 526. 2 Ibid. p. 527. s Ibid. p. 531. 4 Ibid. p. 542. 6 Ibid. p. 559. 6 Ibid. p. 571. chap. ii. ] pyM on GRIEVANCES IN RELIGION 1 69 A.D. 1640I The most memorable thing of all that session was the long-sustained debate on Grievances ; and perhaps the speech of John Pym deserves a momentary glance. It dealt for two hours with these themes : — ' Grievances which during the eleven years' interval have been done against the liberties and privileges of Parliament ; innovations in matters of Re ligion ; and grievances against the property of our goods.' x And, under the head of Religion, he specified these amongst other grievances : — ' Great encouragement given to them that are of the Popish Religion, by the universal suspension of all laws that are against them, and some of 'them admitted into public places of trust and power.' 2 ' I desire,' explained Pym, ' no new laws . . . nor even strict execution of the old ones, but only so far forth as tends to the safety of his Majesty.' He touches scornfully on 'the intention to send a Nuncio from Rome/ as a device for giving ' secret intelligence to the Pope, how we incline here and what will be thought fit to win us thither.' And finally he keenly analyses, and holds up to condemnation, ' the encroaching upon the King's authority by Ecclesiastical Courts . . . fining and imprisoning . . . and many like usurpations, which are punishments belonging only to the temporal jurisdiction ; . . . and the power, which they claim they derive not from the King, nor from any law or statute but . . . immediately from Heaven, jure Divino! 3 Before September of that same year, Charles, driven to the wall again for lack of money, summoned a convention of Peers at York, to advise him, ' First, what answer to give to the petition from the rebel Scots ; and, secondly, how his army could be kept on foot and maintained till the supplies of a Parliament may be had.' 4 But no council of Peers could, for any length of time, avail. Charles himself began to realise this, and resolved to 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 546. 2 Ibid. p. 547. 3 Ibid. pp. 547, 548. 4 Ibid. p. 589. 170 OPENING OF LONG PARLIAMENT [book n. Ia.d. 1640 summon a new Parliament It assembled on 3d November 1640, and continued sitting, amidst many vicissitudes, till it was finally ' driven out' by Cromwell in 1653. But the Long Parliament was the opening of a new era in the development of our constitution, and we will with it enter upon a new chapter. In closing here, however, let us again most carefully mark that the battle for Civil Liberty was now at one and the same time the battle for Religious Freedom ; and this the combatants themselves thoroughly understood. Every con cession to an absolute Monarch of the Stuart type was paving the way for swift and similar concessions to a Sovereign Pontiff. We shall immediately see a Nation in arms — with sword in one hand and Bible in the other — but nothing can blind any reader to the fact that every blow struck to establish the sovereignty of law is directly destructive at once of the despotism of a native King, and at the same time of the jurisdiction of an alien Pope. If our own Kings must bow to the supreme authority of Parliament, much more must the Bishop and the Court of Rome ! Popery felt this, and took its side accordingly. CHAPTER III CHARLES AND THE POPISH PARTY A.D. 164O — 1642 MANY volumes would be required to portray the events suggested by the title of this chapter. Nor would we travel far aside from our main inquiry, did we tell the story and trace the causes of the Civil War and the Commonwealth. For, never at any crisis in all that epoch of struggle and change was the question of ' Concessions to Popery ' — the granting or the cancelling of the same — very far out of view. Nay, we shall see from the Parliamentary Records to be touched on here, however briefly, that at the centre of conflict the agitating and inspiring force was ever one and the same — the Popish Party. We write deliberately these words 'touched on/ finding it absolutely impossible to do more than to indicate the facts and the laws that are vital to this present history. The whole period is a-glow with themes of burning interest. The Long Parliament assembled on 3d November 1640; and, on the 7th of that same month, we find them in the midst of a great debate on ' grievances/ — the tone of which, in other respects, may be gathered from John Pym's de claration regarding ' Grievances under the head of Religion : ' — ' There can be no security from Papists but in their dis ability;1 their principles being incompatible with any other religion, laws will not restrain them, oaths will not — the Pope dispenseth with both ! ' Again, on November 9th, we 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 640. 171 172 PETITION AGAINST THE PRELATES jbookii. ' La.d. 1640 find the Lord Keeper intimating ' that his Majesty, taking notice at this time of an extraordinary confluence of Popish Recusants to the cities of London and Westminster and the places adjacent/ had resolved to ' set forth a Proclamation for their departure and disarming with all speed.' x And, on November 23d, a 'Committee for Religion' having been ap pointed,. the spirit of the times found vent in many speeches, of which these two are samples. Sir Edward Dering said:— ' God's true religion is violently invaded by two seeming enemies, but indeed they are like Herod and Pilate fast friends for the destruction of truth : I mean, the Papists for one party, and our Prelating faction for the other.' 2 And Sir John Wray declared : — ' Let us fall to this work in earnest, . . . lay the axe to the root ; . . . unloose the long and deep fangs of superstition and Popery ; . . . find out Achan with his wedge of gold and Babylonish garments.'3 Words like these, echoed and re-echoed through a practically unanimous Parliament, are an absolutely indisputable index as to what the nation almost as one man felt and believed. In this same spirit the Bishops themselves were attacked, chiefly, if not exclusively, for their leanings towards ' Royal prerogative and Popish superstitions.' A famous ' Petition from the city of London,' signed by fifteen thousand citizens, was presented to the House on December nth, setting forth, under eight-and-twenty heads, 'particulars of the manifold evils, pressures, and grievances, caused, practised, and occasioned by the Prelates and their dependants ; ' and praying 'that the said Government by Lord Bishops, etc., with all its dependencies, roots, and branches/ may be utterly abolished, and 'the Government according to God's Word be rightly placed amongst us.' 4 The question thus launched kept raging on ; Sir Edward Dering, next May, bringing in his bill for the ' Utter 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 651. 2 Ibid. p. 670. s Ibid. p. 672. 4 Ibid. pp. 673-678. chap. iii.T DEBATE ON ABOLITION OF BISHOPS 173 A.D. 1641 J Abolishing of Bishops,' and declaring that he would yield his shoulders to underprop ' a primitive and lawful and just Episcopacy/ but would root out and abolish ' all the undue adjuncts and superstructures.'1 On June nth, we find the House "adjusting the ' preamble ' of the bill, declaring that the government by Bishops has been ' found by long ex perience to be a great impediment to the perfect reformation and growth of Religion, and very prejudicial to the Civil State and Government of this kingdom.' 2 This was called the Root and Branch Bill, to distinguish it from another which aimed merely at ' restraining of Bishops and others in Holy Orders from intermeddling in secular affairs.' The debate was prolonged 'through about twenty days, and finally closed in confusion on the eve of the Civil War.' Lord Falkland declaring that 'they who hated Bishops hated them worse than the Devil, and ' (glancing at the absentees during certain hours) 'they who loved them did not love them so well as their dinner ! ' 3 Side by side with this went on, in a quieter eddy, a bill for the ' Abolition of Deans and Chapters/ 4 and the ' em ployment of their lands to the advancement of learning and piety/ which was agreed to by the House ; and another bill 'To disable the Clergy from exercising any temporal jurisdiction or authority/ on the ground that 'the "intermeddling" of persons in Holy Orders hath caused great mischief and scandal both to Church and State.' 5 This developed into the 'impeachment of the thirteen Bishops ' for ' pretended Canons and Institutions ; ' and, in the progress of the discussion, called forth sometime in the month of December a famous speech from Bishop Joseph Hall of Norwich, in defence of Church and Clergy.' ' The Church of England,' said he, ' is miserably infested. . . . with Papists on the one side, and Schismatics on the other. . . . 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 812. 2 Ibid. p. 822. 3 Ibid. p. 839. i Ibid. p. 838. 5 Ibid. p. 916. 174 THE BISHOPS' PROTESTATION [book 11. Ia.d. 1641 I do perceive a great deal of good zeal for the remedy and suppression of the former, and I do heartily bless God for it ; . . . but for the other, I do not find many that are sensible of the danger of it. . . . Alas, my Lords, I beseech you, consider what it is that there should be in London and the suburbs and liberties no fewer than four-score congrega tions of several Sectaries, . . . instructed by guides fit for them, cobblers, tailors, felt-makers, and such-like trash ! . . . Your Jack Straws and Cades and Wat Tylers of former times did not more cry down learning and nobility ; . . . many of these Sectaries are the same.' x But the tide of passion continued to rise against the Bishops till it broke into open tumults and riots. The door of the House of Lords was besieged by an 'angry rout/ threatening to 'pull them to pieces.' They had to be protected to their lodgings. The Archbishop of York was ' roughly handled,' and had to be rescued from the mob, — whereon the verse of Hudibras chaffs them about 'zeal, with aged clubs and gleaves, chasing rochets and lawn sleeves.'2 The Lord Bishops 'withdrew from attending' the House of Peers, but drew up and forwarded to the King a ' Petition and Protestation ' against ' all Proceedings of Parliament during their enforced Absence from the House;' declaring themselves to have been 'violently menaced, affronted, and assaulted.'3 The Lord Keeper at once pronounced this to be ' a deep intrenching upon the fundamental privileges and being of Parliaments.' And the Commons no sooner heard the Bishops' Protestation read than they ' sent Mr. Glynn to the bar of the Lords, in name of all the Commons of England, to accuse these twelve Prelates of High Treason, for thus endeavouring to subvert the fundamental laws and being of Parliaments.' One man alone in the Nether House stood up in their defence ; but his was rather a left-handed 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 989. 2 Ibid. p. 991. 3 Ibid. p. 993. chap, in.] IMPEACHMENT OF LAUD 175 A.D. 164O 1 apology:— 'He did not believe that the Bishops were guilty of High Treason, but that they were stark mad ; and he desired . . . that they might be sent to Bedlam I'1 Ten were committed to the Tower ; two, because of great age, to the custody of the Black Rod ; and one, Dr. Curie of Winchester, in presence of the House, read the petition, denied all know ledge of it, and solemnly ' repudiated ' its contents.2 It need only be further noted here that on February 5th, 1641, 'the House of Lords deprived the Bishops of their right to vote;'3 and that, on 10th September 1642, a resolution to abolish Episcopacy was ' communicated in a long Declaration of both Houses to their brethren in Scotland ; ' 4 this had been • carried nem. con. It does not concern us to prosecute this theme further here. The window now opened is wide enough to see into the very heart of the times. Returning to our own proper inquiry, we find on 18th December 1640, that the Commons are already plunging into that great affair — ' the impeachment of William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, for High Treason.' This does not now interest us, further than to mark the ' main grounds ' of accusation. These are seen at length in their technical form, in the records of this famous State trial ; but we prefer to look at them in their vital and practical and popular apprehension ; as launched upon the House, for instance, by Mr. Grimstone, and manifestly expressing the universal conviction : — ' Mr. Speaker, we are now fallen upon that great man, the Archbishop of Canterbury, . . . that hath infected the State and Government of this Common wealth ; . . . the man that hath advanced all ... the authors and causes of the ruins and miseries . . . that we now groan under. Who but he . . . brought Strafford to , all his great places and employments? . . . Who but he 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 995. 2 Ibid. p. 998. 3 Ibid. p. 1077. 4 Ibid. p. 1465. 1 76 GOODMAN THE SEMINARY PRIEST [B00K "• ' I A.D. 1 64I brought in Secretary Windebank, . . . the very broker and pander to the Whore of Babylon ? . . . Who but he . . . advanced all our Popish Bishops, such as, Manwaring of St. Davids, Piers of Bath and Wells, Bancroft of Oxford, and Wren of Ely, the least of all these birds, but one of the most unclean ? . . . Mr. Speaker, we know what he hath been charged with in this House ; . . . not only trucking and chaffering, as for instance, sherking and raking in the tobacco shops, compounding and contracting for licences, fines, and fee-farm rents to use their trade, instead of spend ing his time in the pulpit ; . . . but also crimes ... no less than the subversion of the Government of this kingdom and the alteration of the Protestant Religion ; ... as likewise, we have heard the accusation which the Scots nation here charged him withal ; . . . and there is scarce any grievance, wherein we do not find him intermentioned and twisted into it — like a busy and angry wasp, his sting is in the tail of everything ! ' J Whatever issues such a trial may have, no reader of the Parliamentary Records can hesitate to admit that behind and beneath all the Constitutional questions, overtly at stake, there lay the Claims of the Papal Court, covertly pulling the wires and demanding another and still another concession. But that this was the key to the whole situation was made doubly manifest by the affair of Goodman the Seminary Priest, which raged through the months of January and February 1641. He had been once before lawfully found ' guilty of High Treason, and banished the kingdom.' He had lately been condemned again for the same weighty offence, a ' second time ' committed ; but his Majesty had granted him a ' reprieval,' and the citizens of London rose ' in general discontent ' at this over-riding of all laws.2 This inflammable condition of the nation was reflected strongly in Parliament A ' Remonstrance from both Houses ' 1 Hanard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 680, 681. 2 Ibid. p. 710. chap, m.] ALARM OF KING AND QUEEN 1 77 A.D. 164I J was presented to the King, declaring 'that of late years eighty priests and Jesuits had been discharged out of prison about London alone ; . . . that the Pope had actually a Nuncio resident in London ; ' . . . and demanding ' the due execution of the laws against priests and Jesuits . . . and particularly, that Goodman the priest be left to the justice of the law.' 1 The King, feeling that the blood of the nation was growing hot, answered at once, granting everything on the main issue; 'that the laws be put in execution,' that a ' Proclamation would be set forth against Jesuits and priests, commanding them to depart the kingdom within one month ;' and that ' Rosetti, though not a Nuncio and having no such commission, would, to prevent misunderstanding, be removed within a convenient time.' But, with reference to John Goodman the priest, he gave his ' reason for reprieving him ' to be this, that ' no man in the times of Queen Elizabeth nor of his father ' was ever executed ' merely for Religion ; ' though, in view of ' the pressure of both Houses ' and the ' great discontent ' of the people, the King ' remitted this particular case' entirely to the decision of Parliament, ' discharging himself of all the ill consequences that may ensue, either upon his own Subjects or upon other Protes tants abroad.' 2 Yea, the Queen herself, realising the perils that threatened the royal bark, sent a letter from her hand to the Commons by Mr. Comptroller, avowing that ' she was most willing to do all good offices between the King and his people, . . that she would have the one sent to her from the Pope, so distasteful to this kingdom, removed from her in convenient time, . . . that, as exception had been taken to the great . resort to her chapel at Denmark House, she would be careful not to exceed that which was convenient and necessary for the exercise of her religion, . . . and that, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 712. 2 Ibid. p. 713. VOL. I. M 178 THE ELDER PRINCE OF ORANGE [book n. L-A.D. 1641 since Parliament was dissatisfied with her appealing to the Catholics of other countries, and thereby raising money for the assistance of the King, she promiseth hereafter not to do anything but what may startd with the established laws of the Kingdom.' J Nay, Goodman even presented a petition to the King, which has been entered in the Journals of the Lords, praying ' that the petitioner might rather be remitted to the mercies of those who were discontented at his reprieve, than live to be the subject of so great discontent in your people against your Majesty ; ' . . . and declaring that he ' would esteem his blood well shed to cement the breach between your Majesty and your Subjects.' 2 Amidst these conflicts, we find one ray of sunshine falling upon the page. On 10th February 1641, Charles announced to his Parliament the ' proposed marriage of the Lady Mary with the Prince of Orange,' which was well approved of by the whole nation, and consummated shortly thereafter with great solemnity.'3 Was this prophetic of a later marriage, when another of our Lady Maries was given to another Prince of Orange, the son of this one, as she was the niece of that other ; who should be raised up to stand by and rescue from despotism and from Popery the nation and the Parliament that so gladly hailed their first connec tion with the House of Orange ? But space compels us to hasten on, scarcely touching many suggestive events. We hear Mr. Rouse, appointed to conduct the impeach ment of Dr. Cosins, declaring at the bar of the House of Lords, on 15th March : — ' Our laws and Popery cannot stand together ; either Popery shall overthrow our laws or our laws must overthrow Popery.'4 We see the misguided King, with a kind of romantic 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 714. 2 ibid. p. 715. 3 Ibid. p. 716. 4 IKdi p_ 72g_ chap, in."] PROTESTATION AND OATH 1 79 A.D. 1641 J madness of chivalry, throwing a partial shield round the Earl of Strafford, the Parliamentary ' Wentworth ' of other days ; and so placing himself in personal conflict with the verdict of all his own judges — 'that the Earl doth deserve to undergo the pains and forfeitures of High Treason.', ' I have to declare unto you/ said Charles, on 1st May, 'that in my conscience, though I condemn him of misdemeanour, and no longer fit to serve in any place of trust, no, not even that of a Constable, yet I cannot condemn him of High Treason. It is not fit for me to argue the business. ... A positive doctrine best becomes the mouth of a Prince.'1 We hear the citizens of Londbn, through a ' Petition to both Houses signed by 20,000 persons of good rank/ com plaining bitterly ' that Papists are still armed, . . . that some of the most active of them are still at Court, . . . and that Priests and Jesuits are not yet banished.'2 And, on April 30th, we find the King answering, that ' Papists shall be removed from the Court, and that Recusants shall be dis armed, according to law.'3 And, finally here, we find both Houses stirred to passion on 3d May by ' informations ' of ' desperate designs ' against the Parliament and the Nation, solemnly laid upon the table ; out of which there sprang A Parliamentary Protestation and National Oath, to ' preserve our Religion pure and ¦entire, and to maintain our Sovereign in the due execution of the laws.' It was practically a foreshadowing of the Solemn League of 1643, — this one too binding men 'to maintain and defend the true Reformed Religion against all Popery and Popish innovations ; ' as also, ' the power and privilege of Parliament;' and the 'lawful Rights and Liberties of the subjects;' and further, 'in all just and honourable ways to preserve the union and peace between the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland.'4 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 755-758. 2 Ibid. p. 764. 8 Ibid. p. 773. 4 Ibid. p. 776-77S. 180 A POSTURE OF DEFENCE [book n. Ia.d. i 641 This National Oath was accepted, and sworn to, ' without one dissenting voice/ so far as the records show ; but Claren don says that ' two Peers and three Recusants ' made objec tions to it. And on 5th May, copies of the ' Protestation ' were sent to every county, city, and borough in the kingdom, where the ' oath ' was eagerly sworn ; and the Nation stood up like one man, as it were, with sword drawn, against ' the exercise of an arbitrary and tyrannical Government ' on the one hand, and on the others ' the designs of Priests and Jesuits and other abettors to the See of Rome.'1 That was the two-headed beast of the age ; and every enlightened man, in the England of that day, felt and knew that victory for one of these meant the triumph of both, whereas to conquer one of them was to overthrow them both. The state of the kingdom, and the grave necessity of putting the nation into a ' posture of defence/ now occupied the wisest heads in both Houses ; and, on June 24th, ' ten propositions ' were the result of all their deliberations and conferences. Of these ten, with their numerous subdivisions, we note the following as pertaining to our present theme : — ' That no Jesuit be entertained in her Majesty's service, nor any Priest, native of his Majesty's dominions ; the reason of this being, that the Jesuits are banished out of all other Courts of Catholic Princes, and it is against our laws that native Priests should be here ; — That the College of Capu chins at Denmark House may be dissolved, and the persons sent out of the kingdom ; — That his Majesty should be sparing in licensing Papists to come to Court ; — That English ladies, being Papists, be removed from Court; — That the persons of the most active Papists be restrained, as far as shall be necessary for the safety of the Kingdom, be they Lords or others ; — And, finally, concerning the Nuncios, that it be declared by an Act of Parliament that, if any man shall presume to come to this kingdom with instructions from the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 779-781. chap, in."] the IRISH MASSACRE l8l a.d. 1641 J Pope or the Court of Rome, he shall be in the case of High Treason, and out of the protection of our King and our laws.'1 All the other propositions hinge on these : — the ' Disband ing ' of the armies, the ' Ministers of State/ the Prince's ' education/ the ' security and peace ' of the Kingdom. The men who drafted and discussed these resolutions ' to effect the public good' were absolutely at one in the conviction that they were not only grappling with the King, but rather with the power behind the throne — the abettors of Papal Claims. A fresh outburst of fervour, in regard to executing the laws, accompanied the news of the Irish Rebellion. It was communicated to the Commons on November ist; and on the nth, a 'Letter from the Council of Ireland'2 informed them that ' the Papists had threatened not to leave an English Protestant alive.'3 Instantly, the Capuchin House in the Strand was ' dissolved ; ' the Ambassadors were ordered to deliver up ' such Priests ' in their houses as were ' subjects of the King;' and all 'strangers, not Protestants/ were commanded ' to deliver in tickets of their names within two days, or else depart the kingdom.'4 Further, the instructions from the Parliament to their Commissioners in Scotland,, to be submitted to the King concerning this rebellion, contained under the seventh head this unambiguous declaration : — ' Some of those, admitted into very near places of counsel and authority about his Majesty, have been favourers of Popery, superstition, and innovation ; subverters of religion, honour, and justice ; factors for promoting the designs of foreign Princes and States ; . . . enemies to peace, union, and confidence be tween the King and his Parliament'5 The King, on his return, took it into his head to dissolve the Guards appointed to wait on the Houses of Parliament. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 846-849. 2 Ibid. p. 926. 3 Ibid. p. 935. 4 Ibid. pp. 926, 927. 6 Ibid. p. 929. 1 82 ANOTHER STATE WITHIN THE STATE [book ii. La.d. 1641 That occurred on November 26th. Lords and Commons loudly declared that the Guards must be ' continued/ and under ' Officers whom they could trust' On December 1st, we find Sir Ralph Hopton, backed by a strong committee, reading their ' Petition and Remonstrance ' before the King at Hampton Court ; in which they fearlessly declared ' that the " Malignant Party," whose proceedings evidently appear to be mainly for the advantage and increase of Popery, is com posed and set up and acted by the subtle practice of the Jesuits and other engineers and factors for Rome ; ' and they besought his Majesty ' to concur with the humble desires of his people, in a Parliamentary way, for the preserving of the peace and safety of the kingdom from these malicious designs of the Popish Party.' At the words about the Papists, the King interjected, — ' The Devil take him, whoso ever he be, that had a design to change our Religion ! n And at some other words about the ' disposal ' of the lands of the rebels he exclaimed, — ' We can't dispose of the bear's skin, till he be dead ! ' In the accompanying 'Remonstrance' both Houses deliber ately set forth that the root of all their mischiefs is a malig nant and pernicious design of subverting the fundamental laws and principles of Government, upon which religion and justice are firmly established ; and that the actors and promoters hereof, first of all, have been the Jesuited Papists, who hate the laws, as the obstacles of that change and subversion for which they so much long.'2 After reviewing the acts of the Laud and Strafford days, when there was 'exemption from penal laws, besides many Court favours,' and when they had ' Secretary Windebank as their powerful agent/ and the Pope's Nuncio 'to govern them according to instructions received from Rome,' — they close up this part of the Remonstrance with a keenness and precision of logic never since surpassed: — 'Another State is thereby 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 940-943. 2 Ibid. p. 946, chap. iii. "| NOT A RELIGION BUT A CONSPIRACY 1 83 a.d. 1641J moulded within this State, — independent in Government, contrary in interest and affection, secretly corrupting the ignorant or negligent professors of our Religion, and waiting for an opportunity by force to destroy those whom they could not hope to seduce.'1 Popery is essentially and distinctively an imperium in impcrio; and is therefore necessarily disloyal to every Government which it is not allowed to dominate. At least, such were the convictions of the men of Charles's day, called to grapple with Absolutism for their very life ; and they did not hesitate to conclude their analysis of ' the state of the kingdom' with this declaration: — 'The Religion of the Papists hath such principles as do certainly tend to the extirpation and destruction of all Protestants, whensoever they shall have opportunity to effect it ; ' and therefore, it is most necessary, ' first of all to keep them in such condition as that they may not be able to do us any hurt ; . . and to use all due means to prevent their mischievous designs against the peace and safety of this kingdom.'2 There, again, the true note was clearly struck, which, if we rightly master, will save us from worlds of confusion. It was not a question of Religion at all, that is, of any matter lying betwixt the conscience and God alone ; it was a question of National Politics versus Papal Claims. Popery presented itself not as a Religion or a system of faith and life, but as a Conspiracy ' against the peace and safety of the kingdom.' We are scarcely surprised, therefore, to learn that, on December 8th, in response to ' the demand of the Irish rebels to have the free exercise of their Religion and the repeal of all laws to the contrary/ both the Houses, after ' a solemn debate,' placed on record this resolution : — ' That they would never give consent to any toleration of the Popish Religion in Ireland, or any other of his Majesty's dominions.'3 To 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 955. 2 Ibid. p. 963. 3 Ibid. p. 967. 184 THE KING AND THE FIVE MEMBERS [book ii. ^ La.d. 1642 these men, that seemed equivalent to allowing and establish ing sedition within the realm under the guise of Religion, not to speak of idolatry with its inherent curse and doom. The New Year was ushered in by an event of tran scendent interest. On 3d January 1642, the House of Lords were informed that ' the King himself charged ' Lord Kimbolton among the Peers and five members amongst the Commons 'with Articles of High Treason.'1 Next day, Charles, intruding into the Nether House, bowed, saying, — ' By your leave, Mr. Speaker ; ' and made a speech from the Chair : — ' Treason hath no privilege. . . . Are the birds flown ? . . . I must have them, wherever I find them ! ' Baffled, for the Five Members being forewarned had been ordered to secrete themselves, the King retired ; and the House, recovering its wits, shouted after him, — ' Privilege ! Privilege ! Breach of Privilege ! ' 2 With the madness that preludes destruction, his Majesty rode to the Guildhall next day after that, and commanded the Fathers of the City 'on their allegiance ' to assist him in apprehending the Five ; and, on the 8th January, he issued a ' Royal Proclamation ' 3 to the same effect to all his Magistrates and Officers. The circle of insane folly was thus completed. The King set out for Hampton Court on January 10th, and thence to Windsor, and thence within a few weeks to the city of York. He had tried a fall in wrestling with his own Parlia ment. And here is the result: — On January nth, 'the Five Members were brought by water in a great triumph from London to Westminster;' and the Commons of England, describing certain actions as ' against the funda mental liberties of the Subject and the rights and privileges of Parliament,' implicitly branded the King's 'behaviour' as that of ' a public enemy of the Commonwealth.'4 But the outcome of all this is seen, and the deeper 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii, p. 1005. 2 Ibid. pp. 1009-1012. 3 Ibid. p. 1027. 4 Ibid. pp. 1043- 1045. chap, hi.-] THE CRY OF ENGLAND 1 85 A.D. 1642 J interpretation of such events is at once illustrated, by the ' Declaration of the Commons for putting the kingdom into a posture of defence/ passed on January 13th, and beginning with these words : — ' Whereas the Papists and other ill- affected persons within this kingdom have plotted and laboured/ and then plainly charging them with ' a devilish and bloody purpose, namely, the utter destruction of the true Reformed Religion, and the professors of the same.' His Majesty's Reformed Protestant subjects are accordingly called upon ' with all expedition to provide arms and ammu nition, and be ready on every occasion to defend their several counties from domestic insurrection or foreign invasion.' 1 Charles might put what face on it he liked, and historians of to-day may amuse themselves by speculating about the motives of his inspirers and abettors, but the great heart of the England of 1642 had no hesitation on that score. Before that month of January passed the floor of Parliament was loaded with huge petitions. That from London com plained fiercely that 'the Papists had not been disarmed' notwithstanding 'the many discoveries of their treacherous and bloody designs ; ' and that ' Priests and Jesuits had not been executed, when legally condemned.' 2 That from the County of Essex insisted, ?that we were in great danger from the Papists and other ill-affected persons ; . . . who are everywhere very insolent, and ready to act the part of these savage blood-suckers in Ireland, if not speedily pre vented.'3 That from the County of Hertford inveighed against ' the malignant party, the Prelatists and Papists and their adherents/ and denounced ' all Popish and other malignant opposers.'4 Well might Pym exclaim, in a speech afterwards published by the order of Parliament: — ' In these petitions, we hear the voice, or rather the CRY, of all England ! ' 5 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 1033-1035. 2 Ibid. p. 1050. 3 Ibid. p. 1053. 4 Ibid. p. 1054. 5 Ibid. pp. 1055-1060. 1 86 GENTLEWOMEN AND GENTRY ["book n. La.d. 1642 This part of our theme may, perhaps, be closed by noting two other petitions, both singular, and each characteristid of the times. The one was presented by Mrs. Anne Stagg, ' a gentlewoman and a brewer's wife,' from ' the Gentlewomen/ tradesmen's wives, and many others of the female sex of the City of London.' It spoke with feminine emphasis against ' that bloodthirsty faction of Papists and Prelatists,' cited the example of ' the woman of Tekoah,' called for ' the purging of both the Court and the Kingdom of that great idolatrous service of the Mass,' and instanced in apology ' the enterprise of Esther and her maids.' Pym was deputed to answer them, but seems for once in his great career to have failed to rise to the occasion ; for the Gentlewomen were anything but satisfied when he said to them, in effect : — ' Thanks ! go home, and turn it all into " prayers," as befits good women and loving wives ! ' 1 The other petition was from ' the Gentry, ministry, and commonalty, of Cleveland, in the County of York;' and it came to 'certify' the Lords and Commons of England, in times of ' lukewarmness and seducers/ thus : — ' We are resolved to live and die in the faith of the Protestant Religion, knowing no other means of salvation ; and we will defend it with our lives and goods ; which that we may, with our abilities, be encouraged in performing, we humbly desire above all things that we may be secured, — a happy reformation afforded, — and the laws of God and the King, without favour or delay, justly put into execution against the Papists.'2 This was the voice, the CRY, the CON SCIENCE of England. ' Thus far we have thought it necessary to show the origin and causes of the great Civil War ; and to demonstrate from the transactions betwixt King and Parliament that, at the bottom of every Constitutional question then raised, there lay also the Claims of Popery, — that at the back of 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 1073-1076. 2 Ibid. p. 1086. chap. iii.I CONCERNING THE MILITIA 1 87 A.D. 1642 J every demand for concessions to the King lay the demand for concessions to the Papacy. The reader, being now fully in possession of Parlia mentary materials to form a true and independent opinion thereon, we must pass lightly over the days of the Common wealth and the Restoration, only instancing enough of incidents to show the continuity of our thread of history. Indeed, the conditions of our inquiry demand of us, in all fairness, to do so ; for, however true and vital may have been the influence of Popish Claims during all these years, they do not come to the front in the Parliamentary records, with which alone we have to deal. They rather work under ground, and burrow beneath the surface, till the final struggle is at length openly entered upon in the days of James II., to which we must hasten forward. The combat, then once more, is waged on the floor of Parliament, and will demand a complete and patient study at our hands. Let us, therefore, rapidly glance through the intervening scenes. We are back, for a moment, to February 1642. A great conflict is raging betwixt Charles and his Parliament over the 'Ordinance concerning the Militia.' Both Houses de mand 'the right to nominate fit persons to be appointed by the King to be lieutenants of the counties, and worthy to be intrusted with the Militia of the kingdom.' Why this grave entrenchment upon the Royal prerogative, as Charles would regard it, and not without some reason on his side ? Listen to their own answer, solemnly formulated, beginning with these words : — ' Whereas, there has been of late a most dangerous and desperate design upon the House of Com mons, which we have just cause to believe to be an effect of the bloody counsels of Papists and other ill-affected persons, who have already raised a rebellion in the kingdom of Ireland ; and, by reason of many discoveries, we cannot but fear they will proceed not only to stir up the like 188 SELF-DEFENCE THE SUPREME LAW [book n. La.d. 1642 rebellion and insurrections in this kingdom of England, but also to back them with forces from abroad ; therefore for the safety of his Majesty's person, the Parliament, and Kingdom, in this time of imminent danger, it is ordained, etc., etc. J And if any reader wants more light as to the spirit and meaning of these words, let him find it in the ' Declaration of the King to both Houses/ on the 14th of this same month of February, that his Majesty would give present order, 'that a Proclamation issue to require, all Romish Priests, within twenty days, to depart the kingdom;' and 'assuring them, on the word of a King, that to no one apprehended after that time would he grant any pardon without the consent of his Parliaments.' On all sides, the Priests of Rome were thus regarded and treated, not for any matter of Religion, not for anything as betwixt their conscience and God, but simply and explicitly for their practices as ' enemies of the Commonwealth.' 2 Again, mark the same regulating convictions in the following scenes. When the King ' refused to pass ' 3 the ordinance for the Militia, both Houses proceeded to ' enact and declare it to be one of the fundamental laws of the kingdom/4 and passed it independently of the King and without his sanction, affirming by a unanimous vote this far-reaching principle : — ' That when the Lords and Commons in Parliament shall declare what the law of the land is, — to have this not only questioned and controverted, but contra dicted, and a command given that it be not obeyed, is a high breach of the privilege of Parliament.' 5 Their reasons were, that the Kingdom, being in ' evident and imminent danger from enemies abroad and from a Popish and dis contented party at home/ must, maugre the King, nil he, will he, be put into ' a posture of defence.' 6 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 1083. 2 Ibid. p. 1088. 8 Ibid. p. 1106. 4 Ibid. pp. 1 129, 1 130. 6 Ibid. p. 1 140. 6 Ibid. p. 1 129- chap. iii.I CAUSES OF FEARS AND JEALOUSIES 1 89 A.D, 1642 J Further, in the ' Declaration of both Houses,' setting forth to the King 'the causes of their fears and jealousies/ and vindicating themselves before the nation, they showed how their blood was kindled, and what kindled it, by charges such as these : — ' That those in greatest authority about his Majesty had potently carried on for years together a design to alter Religion in this kingdom, and that the Queen's agent at Rome and the Pope's Nuncio here were not only evidences of that design but great actors in the same ; . . . That the war in Scotland had been fomented by the Papists, and others Popishly affected ; . . . That the rebellion in Ireland was framed and contrived here in England, and that the English Papists should have risen about the same time, according to several testimonies and advertisements ; . . . That the Papists, by manifold advertisements we have had from Rome, Paris, Vienna, and other parts, still expect that your Majesty has some great design for altering religion and for breaking the neck of your Parliament ; . . . That the Pope's Nuncio, Count Rosetti, hath solicited the Kings of France and Spain to lend your Majesty four hundred men apiece to help to maintain your Royalty against the Parlia ment, and this Foreign force is the most pernicious and malignant design of all the rest ! ' J It is open to any one to argue that they erred, that their impressions were unfounded ; and we shall look into their arguments candidly, when they are produced. But it is not open to any one to deny that these were the convictions of the England of that day ; and that the whole series of national transactions swing to and fro upon the hinge of concessions to Popery, open or secret. With the month of April 1642, we find Parliament groaning under continued debates concerning ' the Grievances and evils of this kingdom, with propositions of the Remedies and cures.' There, again and again, the same notes fall upon 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 1114-1120. 19O NO CONTRACT OVERRIDES THE LAWS [book ii. La.d. 1642 our ears : — about ' Priests, Jesuits, and Papists, both foreign and native ; ' the establishing of ' a Popish Hierarchy ; ' the settling of ' a College of Capuchins ' within this realm ; and the permission of ' Popish schools ;' — and the same demands about 'the removal of all these from offices of trust and power as dangerous and ill-affected persons;' the exclusion of the Queen, ' being Popish, from intermeddling in affairs of the kingdom;' the making of it 'to be High Treason to propose the marriage of any of the King's children with any Prince or person of the Popish Religion ; ' the execution of all Popish Priests, ' when condemned according to law ; ' the prohibition of ' the saying or singing of any Mass or Popish Service ; ' and finally, the taking of ' effectual courses ' by Parliament ' for the disabling of Papists from making dis turbances in the State.' x On which theme, Pym, rebutting the objection that they were cancelling the ' Treaty Rights of the Queen/ granting the free exercise of her own Religion, made the famous and slashing retort : — ' No Contract can oblige us against the laws of God, neither can any Contract bind us against the laws of this Kingdom.'2 The idea is thus being lifted up visibly before the eye of the nation — that the LAW, the constitutional expression of the will of the people, must be supreme. In May 1642, though the standard of the Civil War is not actually unfurled, we feel in Parliament the throbbing of pulses that could only lead to battle. The Houses appoint as Commander of the Fleet the Earl of Warwick, and dis place Sir John Pennington, whom 'they could not trust/ but whom the King ' refused to displace.'3 The King orders the leaders of the Parliamentary Forces, ' on their allegiance, to attend upon his Majesty at York;'4 but the Houses order them to remain at their posts, and Essex and Holland obey them. The King demands entrance ' to his own magazine 1 Hansard's/1. H. vol. ii. pp. 1155-62. 2 Ibid. p. 1163. 3 Ibid. p. 1 165. 4 Ibid, p. 1 171. chap, m.l ' LOCUSTS AND VERMIN ' 191 A.D. 1642 J at Hull ; ' Sir John Hotham refuses in name of the Par liament, is proclaimed a traitor by Charles, but is thanked and applauded by both Houses ; and Essex and Howard are ordered to the scene.1 On 10th of the same month both Houses are busy with these endless ' Propositions against Popish Recusants,' who manage somehow to get themselves to be regarded as the crux of every problem. It appears now that the ' magazine at Monmouth ' is under their power, and ought to be removed to Newport ; and the Earl and his followers • disarmed.' There is, also, an unprecedented 'confluence' of people to Mass at the ' Ambassadors' houses/ no " such liberty being granted for our Religion, neither in Spain, Germany, Italy, nor France, — and we should be as careful of our Religion as they are of their idolatries.' And their indictment winds up thus vigorously : — ' Priests and Jesuits are locusts and vermin ; they have done much mischief in Ireland, and may do the like here if not prevented ; for their teaching is, 'Juramentum fidelitatis proprio suo Principi, datum authoritate Principis sive Praesidis, Romani Pontificis authoritate posse dissolvi!2 The belief that Popes claimed the power of 'dispensing ' from oaths, thus demonstrated to be fact, was in the popular and even in the Parliamentary sphere one of the great factors that made our history. For nearly three months longer the battle raged on, the weapons, as yet, not going further than ' declarations ' and * answers ' fired at each other, by King and Parliament, and falling thick as leaves across the country.3 The Parliament, time and again, repeated its aims to be these : — ' The main tenance of the true Protestant Religion, the King's just prerogative, the Laws and Liberties of the land, and the privileges of Parliament/ And it thundered into the ear of the King and of the Nation, by manifesto heaped on 1 Hansard's/3. H. vol. ii. pp. 1186-1188. 2 Ibid. pp. 1220-1222. 3 Ibid. pp. 1249-1303. 192 ULTIMATUM TO THE KING [ book ii. J La.d. 1642 manifesto, this invincible resolution : — ' In these endeavours by the grace of God we will still persist, though we should perish in the work ; which, if it should be, it is much to be feared that RELIGION, LAWS, LIBERTIES, and PARLIA MENTS, would not long survive after us.'1 When at length, in the month of June, both Houses sent their Ultimatum to the King, in the shape of nineteen pro positions to be presented by their Commissioners at York ' as the end of all their differences,' — we are careful to note that two of these bear most directly upon our present theme, while several of the rest are tinged and coloured through and through with the Popish perplexity. The 6th propo sition demands : — ' That the laws in force against Jesuits, Priests, and Popish Recusants be strictly put in execution, without any toleration or dispensation to the contrary ; and that some more effectual course may be enacted by authority of Parliament to disable them from making any disturbance in the State, or eluding the law by trusts or otherwise.' And the 17th proposition claims: — 'That your Majesty will be pleased to enter into a more strict alliance with the States of the United Provinces and other neighbouring Princes and States of the Protestant Religion for the defence and maintenance thereof against all designs and attempts of the Pope and his adherents to subvert and suppress the same.'2 Before the end of June the King had issued his ' Commission of Array ' in Leicestershire for the raising of forces ;3 and on 9th July, the Parliament has agreed to raise ' 10,000 volunteers ' in London,4 and is ' melting down and minting into coin ' the silver plate of its generous citizens,5 including the ' gifts of some poor women — even to wedding rings and bodkins.'6 Lord Keeper Littleton had already 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 1314. 2 Ibid. pp. 1323-1327. 3 Ibid. p. 1380. 4 Ibid. p. 1409. 5 Ibid. p. 1365. e Ibid. p. 1388. chap. m."l PARLIAMENT'S GROUNDS AND REASONS 1 93 A.D. 1642 J slipt away to York, and delivered up the Great Seal to the King 51 but Parliament goes on in its Constitutional path declaring unabashed its resolution to raise an army ' for the safety of the King's person, the defence of both Houses of Parliament and of those who have obeyed their orders and commands, and for the preservation of the True Religion, the laws, the liberties, and the peace of this Kingdom'.'2 Further, on the 2d August, they formulate and publish their ' Grounds and Reasons for taking up Arms,' specifying, amongst others, ' the present state and condition of imminent danger in which the kingdom stands by reason of the " Malignant Party " prevailing with his Majesty, putting him upon violent and perilous ways, and now in arms against us, to the hazard of his Majesty's person, and for the oppression of the True Religion, the laws and liberties of this King dom, and the power and privilege of Parliament'3 They charge evil counsellors with having combined under the King ' to bury the happiness of this country in the ruin of its Parliament, either by taking all Parliaments away or by making them the instruments of slavery.' And they bring this declaration, like every other, to its issue at the very heart of the Popish problem, by adding : ' That being done, they then come to crown their work, and to put that into execution which was first in their intention, that is, the changing of our Religion into Popery and superstition.'4* The manifesto closed with the intimation of the appointment of the Earl of Essex to the command of their army, ' with whom, in this quarrel, we will live and die;' and on nth August, Essex and all his adherents were proclaimed as ' rebels ' by the King — Parliament rejoining by declaring all to be^ ' traitors ' who assisted the King. Here, for the first time, the now historical nicknames of ' Cavalier' and ' Roundhead ' fall upon our ears.5 Here, also, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 1271. 2 Ibid. p. 1413. 3 Ibid. p. 1433. 4 Ibid. pp. 1433-1440. 6 Ibid. p. 1451. VOL. I. N 194 THE STANDARD OF THE KING [book ii. La.d. 1642 on the 19th of this month, a certain ' Mr. Oliver Cromwell, M.P. for Cambridge,' scores his first Parliamentary victory. Being appointed over the ' trained bands and volunteers ' of that town, he promptly ' seized the magazine in the Castle, and hindered the carrying off plate from the University to the value of £20,000.' 1 And, at last, this same month, 2 2d August 1642, 'the Standard of the King ' was unfurled at Nottingham ; and ' on the top of it hung a flag, the King's Arms quartered, with a hand pointing to the Crown, which stood above with this motto, Give Csesar his due.'2 Thereafter, for nearly a month on end, ' messages for peace' fill the air, — a first, and a second, and a third from the King — declaring his positive enthusiasm for 'the advance ment of the true Protestant religion, the overthrow of Popery, the securing of the laws of the land, and the con firming of the just power and privileges of Parliament!' But Parliament answered firmly, once and again and a third time, to this effect : — ' Take down the Royal Standard pro claiming war against us ! Revoke the Proclamation declar ing Essex and our soldiers and ourselves to be traitors ! Then we will negotiate — not till then.'3 On October 3d the House is informed ' that the King has left Shrewsbury, and is marching with his whole army on London ;4 and on Sunday, the 23d, the battle of Edge Hill was fought, the story thereof being recited on the following Thursday before the Common Hall of London' by Lord Wharton, accompanied by ' ten Lords and twenty Commoners/ in the afternoon, ' at five of the clock.' The narrative closed with the announcement, ' the army of the King is at Oxford within three days' march/ and all London rang with the cry, — ' Arm and defend ! ' 5 But here again, as everywhere throughout those scenes, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. p. 1453. 2 Ibid. p. 1458. 3 Ibid. pp. 1459-1472. 4 Ibid. p. 1479. 5 Ibid. pp. 1494.1504. chap. III.-] THE POPISH PARTY 195 A.D. 1642 J the key to the whole position, and the inspiring force that urges to the wager of battle must be sought, and can be found only where Parliament itself found it — in ' the Popish Party.' Read and judge for yourselves from ' the Protestation and Declaration of the Lords and Commons to this kingdom and to the whole world/ of date October 22d, 1642.1 Therein Parliament unitedly and deliberately declared 'that the King's counsels and resolutions are so engaged to the Popish Party for the suppression and extirpation of the True Religion that all hopes of peace and protection are excluded ; and that it is fully intended to give satisfaction to the Papists by the alteration of Religion/ Yea, the nation was solemnly assured ' that, for the better effecting thereof, great numbers of Papists have in show conformed themselves to the Pro testant Religion by coming to the Church, receiving the Sacrament, and taking the Oaths of allegiance and supre macy, which some of their own Priests have encouraged them to do, by maintaining " that they might do all those things, and yet continue good Catholics." ' 2 As before, so here again, the reader has it demonstrated to him what the men of that day actually believed regarding Popery as a public enemy of the State. Any one may say that they were mistaken ; but no one can deny that this was perhaps the deepest conviction of their souls, and a main factor in shaping all the events of their time. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ii. pp. 1486-1489. a Ibid. p. 1487. CHAPTER IV THE CIVIL WAR AND THE COMMONWEALTH A.D. I643 — 1658 HAVING thus outlined the origin and causes of the Great Civil War, and traced the influence of Popery with its undercurrent claims on that wild national upheaval, we proceed now to glance at the course and issues of that historical conflict, — specifically with the view of showing how it influenced Papal concessions, or, on the other hand, was influenced thereby. Incessant but ineffectual ' Negotiations for a well-grounded peace' followed the indecisive battle of Edge Hill, 23d October 1642. Three months were thereby consumed ; but regarding these very little need here be said. It will suffice for us to show that, in every proposal submitted by Par liament to the King, and in every answer from his Majesty, the question of concessions to Popery still held a foremost place. For instance, on ist February 1643, amongst the ' Humble Desires and Propositions of the Lords and Commons/ tendered unto the King at Oxford, and running through many details up to fourteen in number, these may be taken as samples repeated again and again in every attempt at forming a treaty : — ' That Papists be not only disbanded but disarmed, according to law ; . . . That your Majesty having expressed (in answer to the Nineteen Propositions) a hearty affection and intention for the rooting out of Popery out of 196 chap. iv. "I INVENTIONS OF THE POPISH PARTY 197 A.D. 1643 J this kingdom, and that if both Houses can yet find a more effectual course to disable Jesuits, Priests, and Popish Recusants from disturbing the State or eluding the laws, you would willingly consent unto it.^that, therefore, an Oath may be established by Act of Parliament, wherein they shall abjure and renounce the Pope's Supremacy, the doctrine of Transubstantiation, Purgatory, worship of the consecrated Host, and crucifixes and images. . . j And that your Majesty will be graciously pleased ... to enter into a . more strict alliance with the States of the United Provinces and other neighbouring princes and, states of the Protestant Religion.'1 Again, on February 6th, Fairfax having reported the capture of Leeds, his letter called forth an ' Ordinance of Parliament,' reciting the circumstances, in order ' to excite and stir up the strongest endeavours and most united con junctions of all religious and well-affected Protestants and patriots to resist and suppress those common enemies of God in pity to their country and the Commonwealth.' And it closes .with this terrible charge as the united conviction of all the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled ; — ' For now it plainly appears, however they pretend to defend Religion and Laws, yet their main intention is to establish Popery in this kingdom, and to extirpate the Protestant Religion.'2 Early in the month of June, we find the journals loaded with details and debates regarding a ' Plot against the Parliament' Edmund Waller, the poet, a member of the House, figures as one of the conspirators ; and John Pym, ' chosen orator for the purpose,' makes a great ' narration ' of the whole affair, on 8th June, at the Guildhall in presence of the citizens of London. Our concern with it here is that it resulted in a remark able ' Oath, or Covenant/ sworn to by every Lord and Com moner, 'holding the paper in their hands and reading it , 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. pp. 68.-71. 2 Ibid. pp. 74-77. 198 PROTESTANT OATH AND VOW [book ii. ' L.A.D. 1643 distinctly;' and finally ordered, after long debate, to be taken by all persons in city or country, ' those who refused having thereby the mark of Malignancy fixed upon them.'1 After referring to the ' Popish and treacherous plot for the sub version of the Protestant Reformed Religion and the liberty of the subject in this kingdom/ and also to ' the treacherous and horrid design lately discovered ' against the Parliament — the 'sacred vow and covenant' was formulated in these words : — ' I, A. B. . . . declare my hearty sorrow for my own sins and the sins of this nation ; . . . and I do further . . . declare, vow, and covenant, that, in order to the security and preservation of the true Reformed Protestant Religion and liberty of the subject, I will not consent to the laying down of arms so long as the Papists, now in open war against the Parliament, shall by force of arms be protected from the justice thereof, etc., etc.'2 That, however, was only the prelude to a grander and more famous national deed. On June 5th we found the Lords busy finally adjusting the ' Parliamentary Ordinance,'3 under which the ' Assembly of Divines ' immediately there after began to sit at Westminster; and on September 18th we find Parliament busy with a proposition from that Assembly to accept 'the Solemn League and Covenant' of the Scots ; and thereby secure its aims, which were ' the reforma tion and defence of Religion, the honour and happiness of the King, and the peace and safety of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland.' In the original edition, 'published by Edward Husbands, 22d September 1643/ there follow these texts ' which the Commons ordered to be printed ' along with the above title : — ' Come, let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten ' (Jer. 1. 5). ' Take away the wicked from before the King, and his throne shall be established in righteous ness' (Prov. xxv. 5). 'And all Judah rejoiced at the oath, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. pp. 120-129. " Ibid. p. 130. s Ibid. p. 120. chap, iv.-] SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT 1 99 A.D. I643 J for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought Him with their whole desire, and He was found of them ; and the Lord gave them rest round about ' (2 Chron. xv. 15).1 The divines, having considered it 'as a case of con science ' referred to them, appeared at the bar and declared — ' That they did approve of the said Covenant, and judged it lawful to be taken ;' but they advised that the following 'explications' should be subjoined to it, namely: — (1) That by the clause ' according to the Word of God ' they under stood, ' So far as we do or shall in our conscience conceive the same to be according to the Will of God ;' and (2) that by the word ' Prelacy ' they understood, ' Church government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, and other ecclesi astical officers, depending upon the Hierarchy.'2 Nothing could more graphically reveal to us the absolute one-mindedness of Parliament on the main issues, than the fact that these were the only points in this famous symbol of the nations against Popery, Prelacy, and Tyranny, that then called for explication or apology ! On September 25th, the Lords and Commons met by appointment in St. Margaret's of Westminster — ' the Assem bly of Divines and the Scots' Commissioners being also present' — for the purpose of solemnly swearing the said Covenant. According to Whitlocke, a certain divine named White ' prayed for an hour ' in order to prepare them ! Then Mr. Nye ' made observations from the pulpit/ showing the 'warrant from Scripture, the examples since the Creation, and the benefit to the Church.' Also, a certain ' Mr. Hender son ' from Scotland ' magnified ' what they were about to do ; in whom we recognise the world-renowned Alexander Henderson of the Glasgow General Assembly of 1638, who, in defiance of Tyranny and Prelacy, calmly retorted to the Royal Commissioners' dismissal of the House, — ' Bring 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. p. 169. 2 Ibid. p. 172. 200 ANALYSIS OF SOLEMN LEAGUE [book n. La.d. 1643 in the candles!' — and proceeded with the business of his Divine Master's Kingdom. Mr. Nye, thereafter, 'stood up in the pulpit,' read deliberately the words of the Covenant, and all the Members present ' lifted up their right hands to God,' and swore their adherence to the same. Their names were subsequently subscribed ' in a parchment-roll ' contain ing the Covenant ; all officers of the army ' were strictly enjoined ' to do the same ; and it was at length 'ordered to be carried throughout all the kingdom.' x It is necessary, for the purposes of our History, to analyse briefly this Solemn League. In the preamble, ' the Noblemen, Barons, Knights, Gentle men, Citizens, Burgesses, Ministers of the Gospel, and Com mons of all sorts,' of the three kingdoms, ' call to mind the treacherous and bloody plots, conspiracies, atternpts, and practices of the enemies of God against the True Religion and professors thereof/ and do now at last 'resolve and determine to enter into a mutual and SOLEMN LEAGUE and Covenant.' And the aims to which they ' all and each one ' do sub scribe, and with ' hands lifted up to the Most High God do swear to seek/ are succinctly these : — (1) The ' preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland/ and the bringing of the Churches of God in the three kingdoms ' to the nearest conjunction and uniformity/ — that we may 'as brethren live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us ; ... (2) the ' extirpation, without respect of persons, of Popery, Prelacy . . . superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness, — lest we partake in other men's sins and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues ;' . . . (3) the 'preservation of the rights and. privileges of the Parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms, and the preservation and defence of the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. pp. 173-175. chap. iv."| FAIR IDEAL FOR THE THREE KINGDOMS 201 A.D. 1643 J King's Majesty's person and authority in the preserving and defending the True Religion and liberties of the kingdoms ;' ... (4) the ' discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil instruments ;' . . . (5) the 'conjoining of these three kingdoms in a firm peace and union to all posterity ; ' . . . (6) and the ' mutual assistance and defence of all those that enter into this League and Covenant in the maintaining and pursuing of the same.' These, in brief, and stripped of all redundant verbiage, are the Six Articles of this historical and international symbol ; and the men who swore it felt no hesitation in appealing to the Lord, ' the Searcher of all Hearts/ to bless their ' desires and proceedings/ for the ' deliverance and safety of His people/ for the ' encouragement of other Churches groaning under the yoke of anti-Christian tyranny,' and for the ' peace and tranquillity of all Christian kingdoms and commonwealths.'1 It is easier to find fault with what they did than to say what better they could have done. Any fool that reads the after-story can put his finger upon a slip here or an extrava gance there; but the man has not yet appeared who has dreamed a fairer Ideal for these three kingdoms, as one Nation under the King, of Kings, than that which fired the heart and brain of these men of the Covenant. And they not only dreamed it, but dared everything to realise it. It will be time enough for us to sneer when we have done half as much for those Ideals of our happier day, which God has presented to the soul, and for which, alas ! how few now are found willing either to suffer or to die ! With the events that followed till the death of Charles, this History has almost no further concern ; they were more than ever exclusively internal affairs, and had little direct or open connection with the Claims of the Papacy. We confess that we are sorry to be constrained by fidelity to our theme 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. pp. 169-171. 202 SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE ["book ii. La.d. 1644 to pass by altogether in silence many of the most picturesque scenes in the development of the British Constitution. For even though the nation was well aware of the enemy behind the King with whom the battle was being waged, and both parties felt that Popery and tyranny would stand toge ther or fall together in the issue ; yet, for the time, the Parliamentary Journals and Records, which are here our one source of information, present the conflict as wellnigh solely that of King versus Parliament — the sleeping partner ship of Pope and King being comparatively ignored. How ever strongly tempted, therefore, we will not climb over the Parliamentary walls, or wander into the fields of General History. January 1644 saw the King's vain attempt to hold a Parliament at Oxford, in defiance and exclusion of the Long Parliament then sitting at Westminster.1 July brought tidings of the battle of Marston Moor ; and October, of the second battle at Newbury.2 With December, the Houses entered into long-drawn and very far-reaching discussions on the so-called Self-Denying Ordinance. When the matter was proposed, involving, as it did, ' the exclusion of all Members of both Houses from every office, either Civil or Military, which was conferred or granted by either House/ and thereby directly demanding the resignation of Lord-General Essex from the army and the Earl of Warwick from the navy, besides every other member of the Houses who was publicly engaged by Parliament in the service of the country, and that in order to demonstrate that they had ' clean hands and sought no selfish interests/ — it is recorded that 'there was a general silence for a good space of time ... to see who should break- the ice, and speak first on so sharp and tender a point'3 It was then that a certain ' Mr.' Oliver Cromwell, now ' Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. p. 202. 2 Ibid. pp. 277, 296. s /iidm p> 326# chap, iv.1 THE ' KING'S CABINET OPENED ' 203 A.D. 1645 J himself a General, launched the subject with these memorable words: — 'This is now the time to speak, or for ever to hold the tongue ! For the occasion is no less than to save a Nation out of a bleeding, almost dying, con dition.' Then he told them 'to their faces what others were uttering behind their backs,' and demanded the ' New- Modelling of the Army ' as the absolute pre-requisite of any possible success.1 All through December, and on till April of the next year, 1645, this great affair agitated the Houses. Essex, Manchester, Denbigh, and Warwick resigned their Commissions ; and on 3d April the famous Self-Denying Ordinance passed into law.2 But one's eyes open very wide when he reads, in the journals of the same month, that Parliament granted a special 'dispensation' to Cromwell to continue in his command, on account of his ' signal service to the Cause ;' and yet to retain his seat in the House. More amazing still, this was repeated time after time, on each occasion ' for forty days longer/ — till, says the chronicler, he got 'riveted in the Army/ and dispensed with any further 'dispensations.'3 Doubtless that soldier born, and leader of men to victory, was in his right place. All the same, it throws a sinister light on the Self-Denying Ordinance ! The battle of Naseby, 14th June 1645, nas some interest for us. It threw into the hands of Parliament many private letters of the King, and demonstrated by his own written words, that he was lying to them and deceiving them at every turn. All proposals for peace were at once abandoned. The 'King's Cabinet Opened' was published by order. And Charles was found declaring, in his own letters to the Queen, etc. : — e.g., ' That he would never have acknowledged this Parliament if he had had but two men to have stuck to him in denying it ; himself being more ready to destroy the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. p. 326. 2 Ibid. pp. 327, 358. 3 Ibid. pp. 359, 362, 368. 204 DISPOSAL OF THE KING'S PERSON [book ii. La.d. 1647 Parliament, and more violently bent against it, than his very Oxford Council.' Further, it was shown, 'that the King endeavours to bring in the foreign Princes of the Romish Religion, with an army of strangers, to invade this kingdom ' — referring to the army of the Duke of Lorraine. And, finally, which most directly concerns us here, it was demonstrated from his own writings, ' that the King intends to take away all penal laws against Papists in England, and that by the arms and assistance of Papists.' The conclusion of the whole matter being irresistibly stated thus : — ' The same power that may take away these laws may take away all other laws ; and so, by force, subject both Religion and Liberty to the will and pleasure of the King and of Roman Catholics.'1 Nothing could surpass the point and precision of this state ment. Shall it be tyranny by a single will, or shall it be government by the will of the nation in Parliament ? Before March of the following year, 1646, the King, utterly beaten and broken, offered to ' disband ' his Army and ' return to his Parliament.' 2 In May, he ' left Oxford in disguise,' and surrendered himself to the Army from Scot land, then lying before Newark.3 Some months were then filled up with ' propositions ' for a ' safe and well-grounded peace,' 4 identical with those already passed in review, and with great debates regarding the disposal of the King's person.5 And on 30th January 1647, after many, palaver- ings and apparently good faith on all hands, Charles, was 'surrendered' by the Scots' Army at Newcastle to a grand Committee of both Houses from the Parliament of England.6 But no sooner was the King safely in their hands than the struggle assumed an entirely new phase, namely, that of Army versus Parliament. 'Petitions and representations1 from the officers under Sir Thomas Fairfax now became the * Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. pp. 376-380. 2 Ibid. p. 451. 8 Ibid. pp. 463-469. * Ibid. pp. 499-511. 6 Ibid. p. 521. « Ibid. pp. 538-556. chap. iv. ] ARMY versus PARLIAMENT 205 a.d. 1647 1 order of the day.1 In vain the Parliament branded them as ' tending to distemper and mutiny.' A 'letter ' came from the troopers, point blank 'refusing to go to Ireland, or to be disbanded till their desires were granted.' 2 Cromwell's hand was suspected in all this. And, on 2d June, Cornet Joyce surrounded Holdenby House and carried off the King ' by authority of the Army.' 3 Before the end of that month, we find both Houses 'inviting the King to Richmond/ and ordering the Army to ' remove from St. Albans to within forty miles of London.'4 In July we see the 'Com missioners' from Parliament, and the 'Commissioners 'from the Army, working hard at a ' treaty ; ' 5 while, the House of Commons is groaning under -an' 'impeachment' containing twenty-five articles against eleven of its Members, ' in name of his Excellency, Sir Thomas Fairfax, and the Army under his command.' 6 Riotous mobs began to surround the doors of Parliament, so that 'the lobby could not be cleared, for a vote.'7 Fairfax marched on London, 30th July, ignoring 'the order of both Houses to withdraw to within thirty miles ; ' the city opened its gates, and the soldiers entered and paraded its streets ' with laurels in their hats.' 8 In November, the poor King made his escape from Hampton Court, and took refuge in the Isle of Wight9 During December, the famous Four Bills were presented to him there for signature — concerning the ' Forces by sea and land;' concerning justifying the 'proceedings of Parliament in the late war ; ' concerning ' Peers lately made or hereafter to be made ; ' and concerning the ' adjournment of both Houses of Parliament ; ' but these the King, backed by ' the protest of the Scots' Commissioners/ resolutely refused to sign.10 Whereon the storm burst afresh in Parliament, — both Houses resolving 'neither to send nor receive any further 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. pp. 560-570. 2 Ibid. p. 571. 3 Ibid. p. 591. * Ibid. p. 637. 6 Ibid. p. 662. • Ibid. pp. 664-677. 7 Ibid. p. 718. 8 Ibid. pp. 724, 754. » Ibid. p. 786. m Ibid. p. 823- 206 THE FOUR BILLS AND THEIR FRUITS ["book ii. La.d. 1648 message or address from the King ; ' 1 and that order to be observed by all on pain of High Treason. That was on 4th January 1648 ; the Earls of Warwick and Manchester alone dissented, and the debate in the Commons took the wildest form. Sir Thomas Wroth moved 'to imprison and impeach the King/ and 'settle the kingdom without him ; ' adding, ' He cared not what Government they set up, so it were not by kings and devils ! ' Commissary Ireton, in name of the Army, ' godly and valiant men who had engaged for them beyond all possibility of retreat,' declared that 'the King had denied safety and protection to his people by denying the Four Bills ; . . . and that they might therefore well deny any more subjection to him, and settle the kingdom without him.' And, finally, General Cromwell ' brought up the rear/ giving 'an ample character of the valour and godliness of the Army/ and protesting that 'the Parliament should govern and defend the kingdom by their own power and resolution, and not teach the people any longer to expect safety and government from an obstinate man whose heart God had hardened ! ' And ' at uttering these words,' our chronicler declares, 'Cromwell laid his hand upon his sword.' 2 Alas, if he should draw it, for that now dilapidated Long Parliament! Braver enemies have fled before it in dismay. Before July comes round, there have been ' mutinies ' in the navy, 'commotions' in Kent, 'riots' at Westminster, 'petitions' from Surrey, 'representations' from the Scots' Commissioners, ' risings ' in favour of the King, and finally the 'army of Scotland' has crossed the Border, and the Prince of Wales lies with a ' fleet ' off the Downs.8 Parlia ment, 'vacating its previous resolution/ at length agrees, 28th July 1648, to negotiate on the basis of a 'personal 1 Hansard's PH. vol. iii. pp. 831, 832, 847-873. ' ^^ PP- 831-834. s Iiidm pp_ 880-955. chap, iv.-] THE SUPREME POWER, IN THE NATION 207 a.d. 1649 J treaty ' with the King ; 1 and the tide seemed to be turning in his favour. But suddenly, in August, came news of Cromwell's smash ing up of the Scots' Army under Hamilton at Preston ; 2 and, in October, of his triumphal reception in Edinburgh, with the whole of North Britain at his feet3 'Petitions' then poured in upon the House of Commons to declare them selves ' the Supreme Authority of the Nation/ 4 from London, Westminster, Southwark, etc., and ' remonstrances ' from the Army, ' praying for justice on the King.' 5 The ' King's person' was at length delivered up by Colonel Hammond, at once his guard and gaoler on the Isle of Wight ; 6 and Lord-General Fairfax, with his army, marched straight upon London.7 That was on November 29th ; and, in December, we find that the Army have seized and ' imprisoned ' no fewer than forty-seven Members of the House, and 'secluded' other ninety-six, — the people rather enjoying the wicked humour of Nemesis, and nicknaming this cleansing operation 'Pride's Purge/ from the name of Colonel Pride, the leader of the regiment8 The way was now clear for the Army to work its will. The remaining rump of a Parliament was its ready instru ment, and events were pushed on with a terrible rapidity. On December 23d, they resolved to ' proceed capitally against Charles Stuart, the King of England.'9 On January 4th, 1649, the Nether House passed the following resolution : — ' That the Commons of England, in Parliament assembled, being chosen by and representing the people, have THE SUPREME POWER IN THIS NATION.'10 And on the 6th, the Act was adjusted and passed for 'erecting an High Court of Justice for trying the King.' n 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. p. 959. 2 Ibid. p. 997. 3 Ibid. p. 1052. 1 Ibid. p. 1005. 6 Ibid. pp. 1077-1127. 6 Ibid. p. 1133. 7 Ibid. p. 1138. 8 Ibid. pp. 1240-47. » Ibid. p. 1252. 10 Ibid. p. 1257. n Ibid. p. 1258. 208 CAROLUS TYRANNUS [book ii. La.d. 1649 On the 19th, Charles was presented at the bar of West minster Hall, under a strong military guard. Once and again he ' declined the authority of the courts.' This was a third and a fourth, time repeated ; but Charles, brought to bay, displayed the dignity of a Prince and the faith of a Martyr. He was an absolutist and a tyrant, on principle and in conscience, and not even in that dread peril would he forego one iota of 'his right Divine to govern wrong.' He was, of course, condemned and sentenced to death, as a ' public and implacable enemy of the Commonwealth.' A few moments before his execution, on 30th January 1649, Charles testified calmly and even triumphantly, — 'I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown.' The executioner held up before the multitude his blood-stream ing head, and cried, ' A traitor ! A traitor ! ' x Others have since tried to change the cry into, ' A Martyr ! A Martyr ! ' And we, who go by fact and law alone, write it on these pages, ' Carolus Tyrannus — Charles the Tyrant ! ' He was indeed a traitor — seeking to sell and betray the privileges of Parliament and the liberties and religion of his People. He was as truly a martyr — testifying by his blood to that miserable faith in the Jus Divinum of kings, which he had ingrained into his nature by the teaching of his pedantic father, with his Basilikon Doron and the like. But he was alike by creed and by conduct, Charles the Tyrant, and for that he died — hurling the earthen vessel of his personal will against the iron pot of the national will, and getting it shivered to pieces. This chapter bears, however, only indirectly on our theme, and we hasten on to its close. During the days of the Commonwealth, there was no question about concessions to Popery. Through the stern Cromwellian and Puritan years, England would listen to or tolerate claims on behalf of no Foreigner — be he Pope of Rome or King of France ! 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. pp. 1259-1266. chap. iv.T BAREBONE'S PARLIAMENT 209 A.D. 1653J Even in the ' Instrument of Government/ x read out at the inauguration of Oliver as ' Lord Protector of the three Nations,' it was expressly 'provided' that the liberty ac corded to all 'who profess faith in God by Jesus Christ/ for the exercise of their Religion should ' not be extended to Popery nor Prelacy, nor to such as, under the profession of Christ, hold forth and practise licentiousness ' (Article xxxvii). In April 1653, Cromwell had scornfully dissolved the Long Parliament, ordered his soldiers to 'take away that fool's bauble the Mace/ and locked the door ; and next day, a wag nailed a paper on the door, ' This House to let — now unfurnished ! ' 2 In July he had summoned a new Parliament, and about one hundred and twenty came together — the ' nominees ' of his officers ; but the ' people ridiculed them mercilessly as the Barebone's Parliament,3 and, on December 12th, they ' surrendered back their power to Cromwell.' 4 This nick name was suggested by the fantastic titles of two brothers who were members, the one being christened 'Praise-God Barebone/ and the other ' If-Christ-had-not-died-for-you- you-had-been-damned Barebone ; ' ' but the people/ says Hume gleefully, ' retained only the last word, and commonly called him " Damned Barebone." ' 5 On December 16th Cromwell's Inauguration had been solemnly celebrated ; and in the following September, 1654, he once more tried the experiment of governing by a Parliament. But he opened it with the ominous words, — ' If my calling be from God and my testimony from the people, God and the people shall take it from me, else I will not part with it'6 And on January 22d, 1655, Oliver dissolved this, his second Parliament, roundly declaring, ' I think it my duty to tell you that it is not for the profit of 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. pp. 1416-1426. 2 Ibid. pp. 1381-1385. 3 Ibid. p. 1390. 4 Ibid. p. 1414. 6 Ibid. p. 1407. 6 Ibid. p. 1446. VOL. I. O 210 CROMWELL'S IDEAS OF GOVERNMENT [book n. La.d. 1658 these nations, nor for common and public good, that you should continue here any longer!'1 His third and last experiment at Parliaments was made in September 1656, but with no better success.2 In the following March they 'humbly petitioned and advised him to take the title of King.' 3 Oliver spent above two months in grappling with his ' doubts and scruples ; ' and, at length, on 8th May, declined the name of ' King : ' but he remained in fact twice a King ! They presumed, however, to ' question the authority ' of the mongrel ' House of Lords ' nominated by Cromwell in December, for which he sharply rebuked them ; and on 4th February 1658, he dissolved them uncere moniously, declaring, ' I think it high time that an end be put to your sittings, . . . and let God be Judge betwixt you and me ! ' It was but too evident that this great soldier, the founder of the Commonwealth, and one of the strongest and wisest rulers that ever held the reins in Britain, had just about as little idea of Constitutional Government as Charles whom they had beheaded. But it was equally manifest to the nation then, as it is to us now again in the sunlight of Carlyle's resurrection of his character, that, unlike Charles, Cromwell tyrannised at least for the public weal and in defence of the country's dearest interests both at home and abroad. And when he died at Hampton Court, 3d September 1658, he left England stronger in the face of all the world than she had ever been since 'the stately days of great Elizabeth.' 4 So far as our immediate history is concerned, it remains only for us to repeat the note that Cromwell, to whom has sometimes been ascribed the glory of being the first to preach the right and duty of toleration, allowed his third Parliament to persecute poor James Naylor, the ' Quaker * Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. p. 1477. 2 Ibid. p. 1479, 3 Ibid. p. 1490-1502. 4 Ibid. p. 1529. chap, iv.-] LIMITS OF CROMWELL'S TOLERATION 211 a.d. 1658J Apostle/ who was ' whipped and pilloried through London and Bristol, had his tongue bored, and was branded with the letter B ; ' x and further, that in his ' Instrument of Govern ment/ which was based upon the army's ' New Plan ' for the settlement of the nation, while ' no one was to be compelled by penalties or otherwise to the Religion publicly professed in these kingdoms/ and while ' all who professed their faith in God by Jesus Christ were to be protected in their Religion/ nevertheless it was ' not intended to be thereby provided that this liberty should necessarily extend to Popery/ 2 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. p. 1488. 2 Ibid. pp. 1276, 1425. CHAPTER V CAROLUS SECUNDUS MENDAX a.d. 1659 — 1673 CROMWELL used to speak of September 3d as the anniversary of his 'crowning mercies.' On that day God gave his enemies into his hands at the decisive battles of Dunbar and of Worcester. On that day also, as we have seen, he fought his last battle and surrendered to Death, the conqueror of all. But the heritage of Lord Protector ship, which on that day descended to his son, proved to be no crowning mercy to him — rather, in truth, a burden too heavy to bear ! Richard Cromwell called his first Parliament for February 1659.1 Debates arose on the ' recognition of his Highness's right and title to be Lord Protector ; ' 2 also, on whether the ¦constitution of Parliament involves the necessity of 'two Houses ; ' 3 and finally, about April, the Commons were grappling with 'humble representations and petitions' from the army's 'Council of Officers.'4 On the 18th of that month, the Parliament voted 'that there shall be no such Council of Officers without the Protector's consent'6 The Officers, by way of rejoinder, demanded the 'dissolution of Parliament/ and Richard Cromwell obeyed, dissolving it on April 22d;6 thereby practically dethroning himself, — for he soon after signed his own Demission, retired humbly to 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. p. 1530. 2 Ibid. p. 1540. 3 Ibid. p. 1541. 4 Ibid. p. 1543. 5 Ibid. p. 1544. « Ibid. p. 1545. 212 chap. v. "] THE RUMP PARLIAMENT 213 A.D. 1659J his farm, lived a quiet and happy life through more than a decade into the next century, and died in peace in 171 2, despised by Courts, and in turn wisely despising them. The Council of Officers made a desperate bid for the supreme power ; but the expedient upon which they fell covered their cause with ridicule. They revived, in 1659, the old Long Parliament, which Oliver drove out in 1653,1 on the pretence that it had never been legally ' dissolved ' and that it was still sitting! About ninety -one M.P.'s answered their summons, and the people loudly mocked it as the ' Rump Parliament' The Army, with its ' petitions/ domi neered the House from May till October ; and, on certain Officers being cashiered by its orders, the Army ' blocked ' every avenue to the House, ' turned the Speaker's horses and civilly conducted him home,' 2 and in a single day, the 13th of October, simply throttled the Rump Parliament out of existence ! Their self-appointed ' Committee of Safety/ however, looked very grave when almost the first business submitted to the 'Twenty-three' was a letter from General Monk, expressing great dissatisfaction, and intimating his march from Edinburgh to London.3 And laughter and amazement chase each other when we read that they once more called together the twice kicked-out Parliament ; and that the Rump was again gravely discussing the business of the nation under Mr. Speaker Lenthall on and after December 26th; amongst other prudent measures voting '^1000 a year, land of inheritance, to be settled on General Monk for his signal services,' and sending messengers to hail and to hasten his return to London ! 4 On 6th February 1660, Monk 'addressed ' the Parliament,5 but still leaving them and the nation in galling suspense. On the 9th he marched into London and executed ' reprisals ' 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. p. 1547. 2 Ibid. p. 1568. 8 Ibid. p. 1569. 4 Ibid. pp. I57I-I573- 5 Ibid. pp. I575-IS77. 214 THE CONVENTION PARLIAMENT [book n. ^ L.A.D. 1660 against the citizens — the Common Council having 'flatly refused to pay any more taxes till a free and lawful Parlia ment should be called together.'1 But he instantaneously repented the deed, bitterly reproached the Parliament for sending him ' on such odious service/ apologised by a public manifesto to the Corporation of London, and commanded the Rump to fix the time for its own dissolution, ' within a week,' and to issue writs for the assembling of a ' new and lawful Parliament.' 2 The city and the country from end to end were soon ablaze with bonfires ; and everywhere the people mockingly threw ' rumps and tails of sheep ' into the flames ! The new Parliament was called for 25 th April ; and the elections were 'carried with a mighty rush' in favour of Charles II.,3 whom, from the day of his father's execution, the Scots had pro claimed to be King. On March 16th, 1660, the Long Parlia ment finally dissolved itself,4 after having, Rumps and all, sat since 3d November 1640. Of it might be said what has less truly been thrown against the Lord Bacon of Eliza bethan fame — ' Greatest, wisest, meanest,' of Parliaments ! The Convention of the Two Estates, whereby the restora tion of Monarchy was brought about, has come to be historically known as the ' Convention Parliament' It assembled on 25 th April and was dissolved on 24th De cember 1660. Doubtless there was urgent necessity for the Lords, on the second day of their sitting, ' ordering that a conference be had with the House of Commons to consider of some way and means to be found out to make up the breaches and distractions of this kingdom.'6 But, swift though they were, Charles already led the way. A letter, dated from Breda 'in the twelfth year (!) of his reign' and signed 'C .R./ was already in London when they met for the 'settlement of this nation' on the first of May, and was 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iii. pp. 1577-1579. - Ibid. pp. 1579-1582. 8 Ibid. pp. 1585-1588. 4 Ibid. p. 1584. 6 Ibid. vol. iv. p. 12. chap. v. "] HYPOCRITICAL LETTERS 2 1 5 A.D. 1660 J J delivered to them ' by the hands ' of Sir John Grenville ; another to the Commons ; a third to General' Monk and the Council of State ; and a fourth to the Lord Mayor and the City.1 There came also, published broadcast throughout the land, the ' Declaration of Charles Rex to all his loving Sub jects.' Therein he proclaimed a 'free and general pardon for all crimes whatsoever heretofore committed against Us or our Royal Father.' He conjured them to unite for the ' re-settlement of our just rights and theirs, in a free Parliament, by which, upon the word of a King, we will be advised.' If the ' word of a King ' is to be interpreted by the after conduct of this Charles, then King means liar on principle ! He further declared, because of the ' several opinions in Religion produced by the passion and unchari- tableness of the times,' that there should be a 'liberty to tender consciences, and that no man shall be disquieted or called in question for differences of opinion in matter of Religion, which do not disturb the peace of the kingdom.' 2 Nay, in his letter to the Commons, he went the length of declaring — it being as nearly as possible demonstrable that even at this time he was secretly a Roman Catholic, as his brother James, the Duke of York, certainly was — that 'the advancement and propagation of the Protestant Religion had always been made both his care and his study.' And he wound up with a proper and pious whine — for, from a libertine like Charles, it could be nothing else — ' We hope that we have made a right Christian use of our afflictions ! ' 3 The pages that follow will enable every reader to see the truth between these lines of hypocrisy. England, however, amidst the dust and fray of a reactionary craze, saw nothing but what she hoped and prayed to see — a King after her very heart ! Both Houses, after conference, resolved, ' that, according ' Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 15-20. 2 Ibid. pp. 16-18. 3 Ibid. pp. 19-21. 2l6 OLD DENZIL HOLLIS [book n. L.A.D. 1660 to the ancient and fundamental laws of this Kingdom, the Government is and ought to be by King, Lords, and Commons.' 1 Sir John Grenville, who, ' only three months before, would have undergone a shameful death, if he had been known to have seen the King/ and had already ' suffered for ten years, in and out of prisons, only for being the King's servant/ was ' publicly thanked ' by the Speaker ; ' had £500 voted to him to buy a jewel to himself, as badge of that honour due to the person whom the King hath honoured;' was told in the presence of the House of Commons that, ' our balls and our bonfires have already proclaimed his Majesty's goodness and our joys;' and was solemnly assured that both Parliament and people have cried aloud to the King of Kings in their prayers — 'Long live King Charles the Second ! ' 2 But we need not pursue the grand hypocrisy any further through the many stages of its development than just to mark old Denzil Hollis, the stubborn-souled warrior of the House of Commons in other days. When the Commis sioners from both Houses now went to the King at Breda and invited him to return in the month of May, Hollis, as spokesman, flattered the ' Dread Sovereign ' to the top of his bent, and assured him that ' what men said and thought in regard to his Majesty's character and government would seem a description of the Golden Age which poets fancy.' But even in the flood of rhetoric, his better and sturdier manhood managed to assert itself so far as to declare, — ' With you, and under you, your loving subjects now expect to re-enter into the possession of their ancient Rights and Privileges, to enjoy again the Laws and Liberties, and, which is above all, their Religion in purity and truth.' 3 Charles lost no time by the way. He rode upon the flowing tide. On May 26th he wrote ' to the Peers ' from Canterbury.4 On the 30th he heard the Speaker in the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 24-5. 2Ibid. p. 27. 3 Ibid. pp. 36-40. 4 Ibid. p. 53. CHAP, A. iap. v. 1 BURNET'S ESTIMATE OF CHARLES 217 D. 1 660 J Upper House, the Earl of Manchester, panting to glorify him as ' Great King ! Dread Sovereign ! Powerful Defender of the Protestant Faith ! ' And he, without a blush, re sponded : — 'A true Defender of the Faith, and a just assertor of the Laws and Liberties of my subjects ! n Then followed the Speaker of the Commons, Sir Harbottle Grimstone, sweltering and grovelling in adulations, and ' presenting a new Petition of Right which hath already passed two great Houses, Heaven and Earth, and I have Vox Populi and Vox Dei to warrant my bold demand, that your Majesty would be pleased to remove your Throne of State and to set it up in the hearts of your people, and, as you are deservedly the King of Hearts, there to receive from your people a Crown of Hearts.' Charles, to do him justice, was not hardened enough in his hypocrisy to conceal that he was bored to death ; but he bravely kept up the show : — ' Really, I am so weary that I am scarce able to speak ! but know this, that whatsoever may concern the good of this People, the defence and confirmation of your Laws, and the establishment of your Religion, I shall be as ready to grant as you shall be to ask. ' 2 We spare our readers the King's ' Glorious Entry into London ; ' all the ' Companies of the City standing in order on both sides/3 and giving 'loud thanks to God for his Majesty's presence.' But we close this section with the estimate of Burnet, a close personal student of Charles, and all his ways : — ' The King was at this time about thirty years of age. . . . He had a softness of temper that charmed all who came near him, till they found how little they could depend on good looks, kind words, and fair promises. . . . He seemed to have no sense of Religion. . . . He said once to myself, he was no Atheist, but he could not think that God would make a man miserable only for taking a little pleasure out of the way. . . . The great art of keeping him long was the being easy, and the making everything easy to 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 55, 56. 3 Ibid. pp. 57, 58. 4 Ibid. pp. 62, 63. 2l8 THE OATH OF SUPREMACY ["book ii. La.d. 1660 him. . . . He thought that a King who might be checked, or have his Ministers called to account by a Parliament, was but a King in name. ... He was an everlasting talker ; he told his stories with a good grace, but they came in his way too often : ' x— rather a common trouble amongst anecdotal people ! Here, however, we pause. The whole man, the whole shallow Epicurean soul, is open to us. True only to one conviction, and that of the animal sort, — true to the de termination of ' taking a little pleasure ' in his time, even though it be sometimes not a little ' out of the way ! ' In the early days of June we find the Houses busy taking, man by man, the Oaths to the King and Government. The Oath of Supremacy interests us particularly here, as bearing upon all Foreign jurisdiction, and directed specifi cally against the Pope of Rome. We give it in full as at that date : — -' I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare on my conscience, that our Sovereign Lord, King Charles II., is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other his Majesty's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal ; and that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-emin ence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm : and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all Foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities : and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the King's Majesty, his heirs and lawful successors ; and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, privileges, pre-eminences, and authorities, granted or belonging to the King's Majesty, his heirs and successors ; or united or annexed to the Imperial Crown of this realm. So help me God, and by the contents of this Book ! ' 2 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 38. - Ibid. p. 65. chap. v. "] THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 219 a.d. 1660J But the Oath of Allegiance is even more startlingly explicit ; and shows how these principles may be challenged, and must be guarded against the Popes of Rome. It also, once for all, we here quote in full : — ' I, A. B., do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare in my conscience, before God and the world, that our Sovereign Lord King Charles II. is lawful and rightful King of this realm, and of all other his Majesty's dominions and countries ; and that the Pope, neither of himself nor by any authority of the Church or See of Rome, or by any other means, with any other, hath any power or authority to depose the King, or to dispose of any of his Majesty's kingdoms or dominions, or to authorise any Foreign prince to invade or annoy him or his countries ; or to discharge any of his Majesty's subjects of their allegiance and obedience to his Majesty ; or to give licence or leave to any of them to bear arms, raise tumults, or to offer any violence or hurt to his Majesty's royal person, State, or Government, or to any of his Majesty's subjects' within his Majesty's dominions : also, I do swear from my heart, that not withstanding any declaration or sentence of excommuni cation or deposition, made or granted, or to be made or granted, by the Pope or his successors, or by any authority derived or pretended to be derived from him, or his See, against the said King, his heirs or successors, or any absolution of the said subjects from their obedience, I will bear faith and true allegiance to his Majesty, his heirs and successors ; and him and them will defend to the utter most of my power, against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their persons, their crown and dignity, by reason or colour of any such sentence or declaration, or otherwise ; and will do my best endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous con spiracies which I shall know or hear of, to be against him or 220 OTHER WEAPONS THAN OATHS [book II. La.d. 1660 any of them : and I do further swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, this damnable doctrine and position, that Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do believe, and in conscience am resolved, that neither the Pope, nor any person whatsoever, hath power to absolve me of this Oath or any part thereof; which I acknowledge by good and full authority to be lawfully ministered unto me ; and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrary: and all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to these express words by me spoken, and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words, without any equivocation or mental evasion or secret reservation whatsoever : and I do make this recognition and acknowledgment heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian. So help me God.' x With these two Oaths on record here, the reader will be able to trace and compare the modifications made upon the - same from time to time, and the reasons given therefor, as they appear in the Parliamentary Journals. And more particularly he will be in a position to judge, with these strikingly explicit and solemn declarations before his eyes, whether, if such Oaths fail, any other form of words which human ingenuity could possibly devise, can be of any avail against a secret enemy, which, despite barriers such as these, found its way to the very heart and brain of Government, yea, to the throne itself. The nation speedily discovered that it must find other weapons than Oaths, however solemn and explicit, both to guard itself and to disable its foes. This Parliament, through all its remaining sittings, was practically engaged with two great and long-continued debates, the one on Religion and the other on Indemnity. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 66. chap. v. -| PRELACY AND THE PRAYER BOOK 221 a.d. 1660J On the former head the struggle was for the re-establish ment of Episcopacy, as against the Presbyterian system of the Westminster Assembly. On July 9th the House in Grand Committee sat on 'an hour after dusk, before the candles were suffered to be brought in ; then they were twice blown out ; a third time, they were preserved though amid great disorder ; at last, about ten at night, it was voted that the King should convene a select number of Divines to treat concerning this affair.' 1 On the 1 6th of the same month of July the debate was renewed in the Commons ; and, after a seven hours' struggle of speech, ended in the adoption of the above recommend ation. Mr. Prynne declared that he 'could not be for Bishops unless they would derive their power from the King, and not vaunt themselves to be Jure Divino! Mr. Bunckley said ' that a moderate Episcopacy might take in the good of both parties, . . . and that Government by Episcopacy, if circumscribed, was to be wished.'2 Accordingly, on 25th October 1660, Charles Rex, as supreme head, issued 'his Majesty's Declaration to all his loving subjects of his kingdom of England and dominion of Wales, concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs.' Here only these two points in this lengthy manifesto need be noted by us : — 'That the Protestant religion of England' is declared to be ' the best fence God hath yet raised against Popery in the world ; ' and that all those ' of either persuasion/ with whom the King ' had conferred/ without exception ' approve Epi scopacy/ and 'they all approve the Liturgy.'3 This, and nothing else, could be expected ; and many men who had taken a prominent part in restoring Charles, but who themselves hated alike Prelacy and the Prayer Book, made very wry faces at the swallowing of this royal pill. But the other theme of debate, and their, resolutions 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 79-80. 2 Ibid. pp. 82-84. 3 Ibid. pp. 131-141. cf. 142, 152-154. 222 INDEMNITY AND INFAMOUS REVENGE [book n. La.d. 1660 thereon, covered Charles and his Ministers, and this Con vention Parliament, with eternal infamy. The Indemnity Bill for a ' General Pardon,' had it been true to Charles's letters from Breda, would have known nothing of names to be excepted.' But, at its very first appearance in the House, ' seven of those who sat as Judges on the late King,' are specified to be exempted ; and, four of these being already deceased, 'their attainder for his murder'1 is to date from ist January 1648. These four were Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton, John Bradshaw, and Thomas Pride. That was dis cussed on 14th May 1660. By the 13th of June the King's promises are being freely turned into lies ; the taste for blood has risen, and they are now eagerly canvassing twenty ' names to be excepted ' from the 'Act of Indemnity, Pardon, and Oblivion.'2 The whole month of August was occupied with ' Conferences ' betwixt Lords and Commons, each House insisting upon its pound of flesh, in revenges in describably mean and basely hypocritical — for few of them had clean hands in the matter any more than the victims whom they were eager to sacrifice as so-called ' Regicides.' 3 Let us dismiss this degrading business by presenting our readers with the final ' Resolution of both Houses/ which, in spite of all that can be argued from the spirit of the times, looks very much as if fiends had assisted in the drafting of its terms : — ' That the carcasses of Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton, John Bradshaw, and Thomas Pride (whether buried in Westminster Abbey or elsewhere) be, with all expedition, taken up, and drawn upon a hurdle to Tyburn, and there hanged up in their coffins for some time ; and after that, buried under the said gallows.' And the Sergeant-at-Arms was enjoined to see this carried into effect ' by the common executioner for the county,' the Sheriff of Middlesex and the Dean of Westminster being ordered to give their assistance.4 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 44. 2 Ibid. pp. 72-79. 3 Ibid. pp. 93, 97-H5- 4 Ibid. pp. 158, 159. chap. v. -| THE PENSIONARY PARLIAMENT 223 A.D. l66lJ While the reader is gazing on that ghastly and dastardly revenge, let us hasten to the close of this same month of December and hear Charles dissolving ' this healing and blessed Parliament' The staggering want of balance displayed by this Restoration Convention, which ' thought nothing too much for them to grant or for the King to receive/ is illustrated by a certain featherhead, Mr. Alex. Popham, proposing to settle upon the King and his heirs a ' subsidy of two millions a year/ over and above his revenue from Excise and other duties. Charles was of course delighted, and had visions of a reign of pleasure without the need of any more Parliaments ! But Chancellor Hyde, afterwards the Lord Clarendon of historical fame, restrained such reckless folly ; and this was counted against him in the days of his impeachment and disgrace — for he pleaded ' that the best revenue the King could have would be the gaining of the hearts of his subjects, that if he would trust to them he would find such supplies as should never fail him in time of need.' J Some of our readers may, at first glance, be tempted to think that many pages of this chapter have been irrelevant to our special inquiry. But, long ere the chapter closes, every thoughtful reader will feel and see, that the great events that are to follow, and in which the finger of Popery again becomes visible, could not have been justly appreciated but for our showing thus the soil and the seed out of which they sprang. The second Parliament of Charles II. assembled on 8th May 1661. It had no fewer than seventeen sessions ; and was at length dissolved on 24th January 1679. It, too, has sometimes been called the Long, but more generally the Pensionary Parliament, because many of its members un- blushingly received pensions from the Court2 ' The Parlia ment was never so embarrassed beyond recovery,' writes 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 164-177. 2 Ibid. p. 178. 224 MARVELL'S FAMOUS TRACT ["book n. La.d. 1661 Andrew Marvell, ' we are all venal cowards except some few.' J Its ' ruling spirit ' may be fairly gathered from the title of a curious tract, published shortly before its dissolution : for the author of which a reward of £200 was offered by Proclamation, but in vain. It is called : ' A Seasonable Argument to persuade all the Grand Juries in England to petition for a New Parliament : or, A List of the Principal Labourers in the great design of Popery and Arbitrary Power, who have betrayed their Country to the Conspirators and bargained with them to maintain a Standing Army in England under the command of the bigoted Popish D. (the Duke of York) who, by the assistance of the L. L.'s (Lord Lauderdale) Scotch Army, the forces in Ireland, and those in France, hope to bring all back to Rome ; ' 2 published at Amsterdam, dated 1677, and supposed to be the work of the celebrated Andrew Marvell ; — ' who sat in the House for Kingstone-upon-Hull from 1660 to 1678/ 3 and sent ' a daily account of the proceedings ' 4 to his constituents there, which is now one of the treasures of our Constitutional History. A few notes on the main issues of the time, as these appear in the Parliamentary Journals, will enable our readers to judge of this very serious charge, and whether there be any actual foundation for the same. A scene at the opening of the Pensionary Parliament lets in so much light upon the times that we must, in passing, glance at it. Clarendon, in his reply for the King to the Speaker of the Commons, touches it thus : — ' I have a very particular command from his Majesty to tell you . . . of one ill circumstance in many elections, which he imputes rather to the vice of the times, than to any corrupt inten tion, i.e. excess of drinking!5 And Burnet tells us that] the Restoration of the Monarchy 'brought in with it thei 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p 447. - Ibid. p. 194 (also Appendix iii.). 8 Ibid. p. 376. 4 Ibid. vol. iv., Preface. 5 Ibid. p. 205. chap,A, hap. v. "I THE ACT OF UNIFORMITY 225 . d. 1662 J throwing off the very profession of virtue and piety. All ended in entertainments and drunkenness, which overran the three kingdoms to such a degree that it very much corrupted all their morals. Under the colour of drinking " the King's health," there were great disorders and much riot everywhere.' 1 Side by side with this, take into account the two follow ing resolutions of the Parliament, and you may then fairly interpret all that hereafter shall ensue ; viz. : — ' That all Members were ordered to take the Sacrament according to the prescribed Liturgy, on pain of expulsion ; ' and, ' that the Solemn League and Covenant should be burnt by the hands of the common hangman on the 22d of May.' 2 But the launching of the conflict actually took place with the passing of what is known as the Act of Uniformity, in the month of May 1662. As events afterwards showed, this was the vital measure of the first session of the Pensionary Parliament. Bishops had now bsen restored to their seats in the House of Peers ; and the Act, which originated there, has a fierce retaliatory tone. It admitted ' no person to have any cure of souls, or any ecclesiastical dignity in the Church of England, except such as had been ordained by a Bishop/ or such as should willingly before a certain date ' submit themselves ' to be so ordained. It enacted a ' form of subscription ' to be made by every beneficed clergyman, by fellows and governors of Colleges, by schoolmasters, etc., declaring ' unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer.' It contained an important clause, affirming ' that it is not lawful, upon any pretence whatso ever, to take arms against the King ; ' and another, denounc ing and 'abjuring the Solemn League and Covenant, as being in itself an unlawful oath.' And the penalty was this : — That any clergyman who did not ' fully conform ' to 1 Burnet's History, vol. i. p. 93. 2 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 208-9. VOL. I. P 226 TWO THOUSAND NON-CONFORMISTS [book n. La.d. 1662 this Act and to the Book of Common Prayer, ' by or before St. Bartholomew's Day/ which was about three months after its publication, 'was ipso facto deprived' of everything of which he stood ecclesiastically possessed ; and the patron was to ' present another in his place, as if he were dead ; ' so that it was ' not in the King's power to give dispensation ' to any man that could preserve him against this penalty.1 When St. Bartholomew's Day came round, the Court Party were amazed to find that above two thousand Ministers refused to conform, and thereby sacrificed bene fices and all worldly gains upon the altar of principle and conscience. But this was exactly what the King and his inner circle designed and desired. Now, the case being so glaring, he had a fair occasion to begin his plot of securing a statutory 'Indulgence/ or Toleration, for 'Dissenters;' and, as Hume frankly points out, he being a Papist secretly at heart, and his brother the Duke already a fanatical devotee of Romanism, ' they sought under cover of ease to Non conformists to obtain ease for Papists. They saw with pleasure so numerous and popular a body of the Clergy refuse conformity ; and it was hoped that under shelter of their name, the small and hated sect of the Catholics might meet with favour and protection.' 2 Therefore, on December 26th, the King issued a Declara tion, on pretence of ' mitigating the rigours ' of the Act. Protesting ' his zeal for the settlement of the uniformity ' of the Church of England, which he 'should ever constantly maintain,' he yet proclaimed that he would make it 'his special care, without invading the freedom of Parliament,' to incline them ' to concur with him in an act for that power of dispensing,' which, at the same time, ' he conceived to be inherent in himself.' And that ' dispensing power ' he would exercise by way of remitting ' the penalties of those, who, living peaceably, do not conform themselves, through scruple 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 238-244. 2 Ibid. p. 258. chap. v. "I plea FOR A DISPENSING POWER 227 A.D. 1663J and tenderness of misguided conscience, but modestly and without scandal perform their devotions in their own way.' 1 Nothing could surpass the subtle State -daft here dis played. It looks, on the face of it, the first rational gospel of ' toleration ' met with in the annals of Parliament. We shall see ere long, however, the very hands which held up this white shield of freedom of conscience reversing it ; and our eyes shall read on the other side of the same shield, in letters of blood — Popery is the mother, not of toleration, but of persecution. The King, in his opening speech to the second session of the Pensionary Parliament, 18th February 1663, recurred to the same subject thus : — ' The truth is, I am in my nature an enemy to all severity for Religion and conscience, how mistaken soever it be, when it extends to capital and sanguinary punishments, which I am told were begun in Popish times. Therefore, when I say this, I hope I shall not need to warn any here, not to infer from thence that I mean to favour Popery . . . And yet, if the Dissenters will ¦demean themselves peaceably and modestly under the Government, I could heartily wish I had such a power of Indulgence, to use upon occasions as might not needlessly force them out of the kingdom, or, staying here, give them ¦cause to conspire against the peace of the same.' 2 The Commons, after debate, returned thanks to the King for all that was contained in the Declaration, ' except what related to the Indulgence ; ' but, on that score, they sent up On February 27th a special ' Address to his Majesty,' which, after loudly praising him in many ways, declared : — 'That it is in no sort advisable that there" be any such Indulgence.' For this conclusion a host of ' reasons ' are urged, the last one being that it ' doth tend directly and inevitably, to open disturbance ; ' and they pledge them- .selves, if any person or party shall disturb ' the peace of the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 257. 2 Ibid., pp. 259, 260. 228 PROCLAMATION OF JESUITS AND PRIESTS [book n. La.d. 1663 kingdom,' that they shall ' for ever and on all occasions, with their utmost endeavours and assistance, be ready to adhere to, and serve his Majesty, according to bounden duty and allegiance.'1 In his reply, by message on 16th March, the King was ' unwilling to enlarge upon their " reasons," though he found what he said not much understood ; ' and for the time he shied off from the subject by appealing to them ' to enable him to put the kingdom into a posture of defence/ so that any disturbances might be easily sup pressed.2 But, lest the Court should even pretend not to see the drift and design of the Commons in all this, both Houses united on March 21st, in a 'Humble Representation and Petition ' to the following effect : — It praised his Majesty's. ' zeal for the true Protestant Religion/ yet complained of ' the great resort of Jesuits and Romish Priests into this kingdom,' and prayed for a Royal Proclamation to ' command all such, excepting only the foreign attendants upon the Queen or the Ambassadors, to depart the kingdom by a certain day/ under pain of all the penalties of law.3 The King, alarmed at the ghost which he had raised, replied ' the very next day/ ' not a little troubled that his lenity and condescensions towards many of the Popish Recusants . . . have been made so ill use of, and so ill-deserved, that the resort of Jesuits and Priests into the kingdom hath been greatly increased.' His Majesty, therefore, ' readily concurred with the advice of the two Houses,' gave order for ' the issuing of the Proclamation as desired/ and pledged himself ' to make it effectual to a greater degree than any of the kind had ever been.' Nay, he declares himself ' less solicitous for the- settling of his own revenue' than for 'using all effectual. remedies to hinder the growth of Popery ! ' 4 From a man of the mould of Charles, this looks just a. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 260-263. 2 Ibid. p. 263. 8 Ibid. p. 263. 4 Ibid. pp. 264-5. chap. v. "I THE FIVE-MILE ACT 229 A.D. 1664J little overdone ! But it was necessary at all hazards to egg the House on to complete its ' votes on supply.' That was entered on at once, and prosecuted eagerly. And when, before the middle of June, the King found that they had voted him ' four subsidies/ he probably thought that his hypocritical professions had brought a very handsome return — in cash.1 The fifth session of the Pensionary Parliament, held in October 1665, was called to meet at Oxford, because ' the Plague was raging at London and Westminster/2 The Houses were exceptionally pliable. A vast supply was voted to the on-carrying of the ' war against the Dutch ; ' and the King was even ' thanked for the care he hath had of the person of H.R.H. the Duke of York!'3 This short session was, however, distinguished by an infamous proposal, that, in its issues at least, bears closely on our inquiry. At first it has the appearance of being antagonistic to Papists as well as other Dissenters ; but, when analysed, it is seen to be a deep plot in their favour. The famous Five-Mile Act was this : — ' That no Non-conforming teacher, under what denomination soever, shall dwell or come, unless upon the road, within five miles of any Corporation, or any other place where they had been Ministers, or had preached after the Act of Oblivion.' But there was an ' exception ' in the Act, in favour of all such as were willing to take what is called ' the Non- Resisting Oath/ and to ' swear that it is not lawful, under any pretence whatever, to take up arms against the King.'4 This Non-Resisting Oath, strange to say, Prelatists and Papists have been supposed ever ready to take — their blind 'submission to authority' being exalted into a kind of Article of Religion ; and, therefore, this Five-Mile Act, with its ' except/ did not bear heavily on the Popish Recusants ; 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 266-269. 2 Ibid. p. 317. 3 Ibid. p. 327. 4 Ibid. p. 328. 230 ANNUS MIRABILIS [book n. J La.d. 1666 but it smote with an iron hand the more sturdy Protestant Dissenter — who had wrestled with Kings before, and might find it necessary to do so again ! The Peers, to their credit, growled at the Act, — such men as Ashley and Wharton, and even the Lord Treasurer Southampton. But the Commons, apparently demented, went the length of proposing to enforce this Non-Resisting Oath upon the whole nation, and escaped the infamy ' only by a majority of three against the motion ; ' ' thereby saving their country/ says Ralph, 'from the greatest ignominy — that of riveting, as well as forging, its own chains!'1 But no sooner is the sixth session of the Pensionary Parliament fairly opened, 21st September 1666 — the 'Annus Mirabilis' of plague, fire, and war — than we find a Grand Committee appointed ' to receive and certify informations of the insolence of Popish Priests and Jesuits, and of the increase of Popery.' 2 It sat for a month, examined a cloud of witnesses, and at length carried through Parliament this resolution : — ' That, in order to the suppressing the insolency of the Papists, his Majesty be humbly desired forthwith to issue out his Royal Proclamation for the banishment of all Priests and Jesuits out of this kingdom, within thirty days to be therein limited.' The usual ' exceptions ' are made in favour of those, ' not being his natural-born subjects/ who 'attend upon the Queen Consort or the Queen Mother.' And it is then declared : — ' That, if any Priest or Jesuit shall happen to be taken in England, after the said days, the laws shall be put in due execution against him.' Nay, the Commons went further and moved that in the said Proclama tion ' proper orders should be given for putting the laws in force against Popish Recusants and such as were suspected of being so ; ' and that, ' considering the present juncture of affairs,' all such ' who refused the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance ' should be ' forthwith disarmed,' and all ' officers, 1 Hansard's P.H. vol. iv. p. 328. 2 Ibid. p. 334. chap. v. 1 SUPPRESSING OF CONVENTICLES 23 1 A.D. I.670J civil and military, and soldiers/ declining to take these baths 'within twenty days/ should be 'disbanded and displaced.'1 Of a similarly complex character was the ' Bill for Sup pressing Conventicles/ which Andrew Marvell calls ' the price of money/ because the King passed it in the ninth session, 1670, simply to induce the Commons to vote supplies. It enacted, 'that if any person, upwards of sixteen, should be present at any Assembly, Conventicle, or Meeting, under colour or pretence of any exercise of Religion, in any other manner than according to the Liturgy and practice of the Church of England, where there were five persons, or more, besides those of the said household ; in such cases the offenders were to pay 5s. for the first offence, and ips. for the second, the teachers and preachers were to forfeit £20 . for the first, and £40 for the second offence ; and lastly, those who suffered any such Conventicle, in their houses, barns, yards, etc., were likewise to forfeit ^20.! 2 . In the original petition for this Act, February 1668, their anxiety was ' that care should be taken for the preservation of the peace' against unlawful assemblies of Papists and others, — the element of ' national safety ' almost never being for a moment lost sight of when Popery is in question.3 The meetings struck at were attacked because they were 'seditious Conventicles.' But' the keen criticism of Mr. Secretary Morrice was true in itself, and was soon sadly verified, — 'The fire of zeal for suppression of Conventicles may be so hot, that it may burn those that cast them in, as well as those that are cast in.' 4 It was towards the close of this same ninth session, how ever, that even the Pensionary Parliament mustered courage to send up to the King a famous ' Petition of both Houses against the Growth of Popery.' 6 They debated and drew it up in face of the King's command to go on with ' supplies/ 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 334. 2 Ibid. p. 444. 8 Ibid. p. 413. 4 Ibid. p. 421. 5 Ibid. p. 476. 2 32 CAUSES OF GROWTH OF POPERY [book ii. 0 La.d. 1670 and his threat to 'dissolve' the House. Waller's 'venal cowards ' were at last being touched on the quick, and the peace and welfare of the nation were being imperilled. We shall see that Lords and Commons alike firmly and unhesita tingly laid the guilt at the door of the Papacy with its Claims and the Monarchy with its concessions. Being sensible of his Majesty's 'constancy to the Protestant Religion/ they hold themselves 'bound to represent to him the causes of the dangerous growth of Popery in his dominions/ and 'what they conceive to be some present remedies for the said grow ing mischiefs.' x Amongst the ' Causes/ let these be taken as specimens : — ' The great number of Priests and Jesuits frequenting the cities of London and Westminster and the counties of this kingdom more than formerly, and seducing the good subjects of his Majesty.' 'Several chapels and places used for saying of Mass, . . . besides those in Ambassadors' houses, . . contrary to the established laws.' ' Fraternities or convents of English Popish Priests and Jesuits . . . besides several schools ... for the corrupt educating of youth in the principles of Popery.' ' The public selling of Popish Cate chisms, and other seditious Popish books/ 'The general remissness of magistrates ... in the not convicting of Papists, according to law.' ' Livings and benefices filled by Popish Recusants . . . with scandalous and unfit Ministers.' 'Children sent beyond the seas, to be educated in the Popish Religion.' ' The insolencies of the Papists in Ireland . . . and the open exercise of the Mass in Dublin, and other parts of that kingdom.' On the last point, they complain scornfully that so-called ' Archbishops and Bishops ' publicly appear there, ' reputed to be made such by the Pope/ in opposition to those ' made under your Majesty's authority;' and they single out Peter Talbot, 2 ' reputed ' Archbishop, ' consecrated so ' at Antwerp, 1 Hansard's/". H. vol. iv. p. 477. 2 Alias Talbott. chap. v. 1 REMEDIES PROPOSED 233 a.d. 1670J JJ treated as ' his Grace ' by the Popish Recusants, and residing at his brother Colonel Richard Talbot's, within three miles of Dublin, 'who is now soliciting your Majesty as public agent on behalf of the Irish Papists.' 1 Amongst the ' Remedies against these growing mischiefs/ both Houses petitioned for a ' Proclamation/ commanding ' all Popish Priests and Jesuits to depart this realm/ on or before a certain day, 'at their perils/ and 'that the laws now in force against Popish Recusants be put in due exe cution ; ' restraining and hindering ' the great concourse of native subjects from the hearing of Mass and other exercises of the Romish Religion ; ' taking care and causing ' that no office or employment of public authority, trust, or command, in civil or military affairs, be in the hands of any Popish Recusant/ abolishing all ' fraternities, convents, and schools ' for the propagating of the ' principles of Popery ; ' and, specifically, that his Majesty would give order for apprehend ing and bringing over one Plunkett, who goes under the name of Primate of Ireland, and one Peter Talbott, who takes on him the name of Archbishop of Dublin, to answer such matters as shall be objected against them.' 2 But even these touches of concentrated scorn against the Plunketts and the Talbotts had to be silently borne by the Court Party. Charles, sorely pressed for supplies, once more, with the aid of hypocrisy as a fine art, granted even lavishly all their petitions. But he added a proviso to his Proclama tion, revealing as by a flash of lightning how utterly beneath or beyond him was the idea of imagining that there was really any principle at stake. Banish the priests? — Yes. Execute the laws against Recusants ?— Yes. 'But/ adds the King, ' I suppose no man will wonder if I make a differ ence between those that have newly changed their Religion and those that were bred up in that Religion and served my father and me faithfully in the late wars.' 3 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 477-8. 2 Ibid. pp. 478-9. 8 Ibid. p. 479. 234 DECLARATION FOR INDULGENCE [book n. *" La.d. 1672 To put too much value on these episodes would be paying an unmerited compliment to a King whose conscience lay in his stomach, and whose one conception of the uses of life was ' to take a little pleasure out of it/ x The pet courtesan, Mrs. Palmer, afterwards Duchess of Cleveland, had probably more to do with these kaleidoscopic actions and counter actions than any great reasons of State ; or, perhaps, his desire to please and to win 'that impregnable Mrs. Stuart of Scotland/ whom Clarendon managed, to the lasting chagrin of Charles, to make Duchess of Richmond — lest his own grandchildren by the Duke of York should be cut out from the succession to the throne.2 These, or suchlike, were the dirty influences now ruling the three kingdoms, and not the brains of statesmen ! The aforesaid Proclamation was duly issued. Priests and Jesuits were to depart on or before May ist. The easily befooled Commons eagerly and merrily ' voted ' the needful subsidies, and were prorogued on April 22d, 1672. But scarcely were they decently dismissed, when our pious King resolved to utilise ' his Supreme Power in Ecclesiastical Matters/ — a power he claimed to be ' not only inherent in him, but recognised by several Acts of Parliament.' He issued a counter proclamation, which came to be known as the ' Declaration for Indulgence/ ' suspending the penal laws against all Non-conformists or Recusants whatsoever ; ' and granting 'to the Protestant Dissenters the public exercise of their Religion in places to be allowed, and approved by us/ and to the Roman Catholics ' the exercise of it in private houses.'3 The proposals, in themselves, might have been vindicated by a strong and consistent Sovereign, as wise and healing measures. By Charles and his Cabal (= Clifford, Ashley, Buckingham, Arlington, and Lauderdale), not to speak of his bevy of courtesans, the whole affair was but 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 284. - Ibid. p. 365. 3 Ibid. p. 515. chap, v.") DISPENSING WITH PENAL LAWS 235 a.d. 1 67 3 J another move in a swindler's game. The Protestant Dis senters were thus to be bribed and bought, in order to shut their mouths against the growing concessions to Popery. x The royal player had, however, gathered heart and hope, or bravely assumed it, when he opened the tenth session of the Pensionary Parliament, 4th February 1673 ; and, on referring to his late ' Declaration for Indulgence/ he pro tested : — ' In the whole course of this Indulgence, I do not intend that it shall any way prejudice the Church of England; but I will support its rights and it in its full power. Having said this, I shall take it very ill to receive contradiction in what I have done ; and I will deal plainly with you — I am resolved to stick to my Declaration.'2 But, little temper as this Pensionary Parliament ever had, it felt that it had been de spotically trampled under foot, and curled itself up to strike. The whole session was consumed on this and collateral issues, at which we can only hurriedly glance. On 8th February, they are already in the thick of the fight. The question is not, ' Whether what the King has granted is right, — but whether the King had any right to grant it ? '3 Mr. Powle ' would comply with the King to do, in a legal way, what the declaration does illegally ! For, if the King may dispense with Penal Laws, he may dispense with all Laws!4' And Mr. Vaughan summed up all issues of the controversy in this pointed manner : — ' This declaration is a repeal of forty Acts of Parliament, no way repealable but by the same authority that made them.'5 It was resolved, at length, by 168 to 116, 'that Penal Statutes in Matters Ecclesiastical cannot be suspended but by Act of Parliament.'6 On the 14th February, they are busy shaping their ' Peti tion and Address to the King,' in accordance with said resolution ; and having done so, they bring in a further resolution to this effect : — ' That a bill be introduced for 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 498. 2 Ibid. p. 503. ° Ibid. p. 517. 4 Ibid. p. 519. 6 Ibid. p. 523. 6 Ibid. p. 526. 236 KING AND LORDS VERSUS COMMONS [book n. J La.d. 1673 granting "ease" to Protestant Dissenters.' x The King's 'An swer to the aforesaid Address/ 2 forced unwillingly from him by a long debate on a motion to press for it 'speedily,'3 was delivered on February 24th ; was, after another debate, declared unsatisfactory, and was followed by a second 'Address ' : — ' We do, therefore, with an unanimous consent, become again most humble suitors/ etc.4 On March 1st the King appeared in the House of Lords, complained of ' the great disquiet begotten in the House of Commons by his words/ and characterised their reply as ' of such a nature that I cannot think fit to proceed any further without your advice.'5 Thereon followed one of the critical moments of our history. The King and his brother, the Duke of York, listened to the debate. Clifford, in high strain, stood up for the King and his Declaration, and described the vote of the Commons as ' monstrum, horrendum, ingens! Shaftesbury, to the surprise of all, ' differed to to coelo, praised the Commons as the King's loyal and affectionate Great Council, that must both advise and support the King, and would do so if their Laws and Religion were secured to them.' While he spoke, the Duke whispered to the King, ' What a rogue you have for a Lord Chancellor ! '6 The Court had, indeed, a majority, but thirty of the most considerable Peers had spirit enough to record their ' protest' When, the same day, they waited upon the King with their ' Address of Approval/ it was felt that the Sovereign and the Lords were committing them selves to 'an alliance, offensive and defensive/ against the House of Commons ; and Charles said, ' I expect that you will stand by me, as I shall always stand by you!" The Commons literally ' seethed with fury ' on hearing of Clifford's speech. 1 Hansard's/3. H. vol. iv. pp. 526-533, 551, 571. 2 Ibid. pp. 542-545. 3 Ibid. p. 546. 4 Ibid. p. 551. * Ibid. p. 556. 6 Ibid. p. 557. ? Ibid. p. 557. chap. v. 1 RELIGION AND COUNTRY BOUGHT AND SOLD 237 A.D. I673 J The Lord Chancellor and Arlington manoeuvred the French Ambassador and their own pensioners in the Com mons' House, so as effectually to stagger the King, and even hoodwink the Duke. Shaftesbury was next day honoured as having ' saved the Monarchy.' Clifford ' narrowly escaped the Tower/ but retired, protesting ' that he would serve no Prince in the world who had not the courage to avow his principles and support his Ministers in the execution of his demands.'1 And letters immediately arrived from the King of France, urging Charles to concede ' everything that was necessary to procure money from his Parliament ;' and, also, apologising to the Duke for ' the necessity of affairs,' but pledging himself once he was ' out of the war/ never to feel easy ' till he recovered that which he was now forced to let go.'2 Thus shamelessly were our Religion and our very Country being bought and sold in the interests of Popery — that is, as far as Kings and Princes could do so. Accordingly, when, on 7th March, both Houses agreed upon an ' Address against the Growth of Popery/ desiring, as before, a ' Royal Proclamation ' for the departure of all Priests and Jesuits ; a ' Commission ' for tendering the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy to all officers and soldiers, and that ' such as refuse be immediately disbanded, and not con tinued in any pay or pension ; ' and that the ' Commissaries of the Musters/ on penalty of losing their places, be ' com manded not to admit any officer or soldier' to be mustered ' till he take the said oaths, and receive the Lord's Supper according to the usage' of the Church of England,3 — when this was ' presented, in all dutifulness, as the best means for satisfying and composing the minds of all loyal subjects/ Charles snatched at the opportunity for another stroke of policy. On the very 'next' day, he appeared before the Parliament, 'freely and readily agreed' to their Address, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 557. 2 Ibid. pp. 558, 559. 3 Ibid. pp. 559, 560. 238 EASE TO PROTESTANT DISSENTERS [book n. La.d. 1673 pledged himself ' to see it performed accordingly/ and appealed to them, for the honour and interest of England, to ' despatch the supply.' And, later in the same day, the Lord Chancellor informed them that, in accordance with what his Majesty declared to them this morning ' regarding his suspension of penal laws not being drawn either into consequence or example/ the King had, last night, ' caused the original Declaration under the Great Seal to be cancelled in his presence/ several other Lords of the Council being witnesses.'1 Whereupon both Houses burst into great jubilations. Humble and hearty ' thanks ' were voted to his Majesty. Another step in the struggle towards Constitu tionalism had been firmly taken. The Declaration of Indul gence was dead and gone. If Acts of Parliament are to be suspended in favour of Papists, it must be done by the voice and vote of Parliaments, never again by the personal will of Kings. Side by side with this debate, and, indeed, arising out of it, another had been dragging its way through the Parliament. We already quoted the Resolution of 14th February, passed, nem. con., regarding the necessity for bringing in a ' Bill of Ease to Protestant Dissenters.'2 Charles and the Court Party tried to obfuscate the issue by treating all dissenters as differing merely in points of Religion, but equally good as citizens and patriots. But, for reasons which amply appear in the Records quoted here, Parliament regarded and treated Popish Dissenters as differing not simply in affairs of religion and conscience, but in matters that touched not only the well-being, but the very being of the State, and so persisted in treating the Papacy and its abettors as a ' Conspiracy ' against the national freedom and welfare.3 Hence, on February 27th, we find Sir Thomas Meres reporting the x Heads of a Bill/ which may be thus abridged : — ' To sub- 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 560, 561. 2 Ibid. p. 533. 3 md_ pfK 535.542. chap. v. 1 DISSENTERS, POPISH AND PROTESTANT 239 A.D. I673J scribe the Church of England Articles ; to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy — the ' assent and consent ' being taken away, the pains for meeting being taken away ; teachers to subscribe and take the oaths at Quarter Sessions, or before two Justices out of Sessions, to teach till next Sessions, doors open, continue for a year, and from thence to the end of the next session of Parliament' 1 These do not look very hopeful conditions for liberty of Religion, but the debate against granting even these raged on through March 17th; the 'third reading' was reached on March 19th, and was followed by a long and fiery controversy, which was 'adjourned to Monday by consent'2 And on March 29th, 1673, while Sir Thomas Meres is reporting and discussing ' the Lords' Amendments and Provisoes to the Bill,' and obstructive motions and counter-motions were being made, Black Rod was heard ' knocking ' at the door, the Parliament was adjourned till October 20th,3 and the 'Bill for Ease' went the way of many far better and wiser measures. It has a vital bearing upon this inquiry, as a burning illustration of the impression produced upon the men of that day by the Claims of Popery, as contrasted with the wildest claims of the wildest of Protestant Sects. The one party struck at the heart of Government, and had to be restrained on grounds of public safety. The other limited itself to the sphere of Religion proper, and could be only left to con science and to God. But the session, thus arrogantly and summarily closed, had borne another fruit, and is for ever memorable for another controversy which it successfully waged against the Court The ball was set a-rolling by Mr. Sacheverell on February 28th, who ' moved for the removing of all Popish Recusants out of Military office or command.'4 This motion aimed at the highest game, implicitly if not explicitly, — the Duke of 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p, 553. 2 Ibid. pp. 57.I-577. 3 Ibid. p. 584. 4 Ibid. p. 553, 240 PAPISTS AND PUBLIC EMPLOYMENTS [book ii. La.d. 1673 York, the King's brother and heir, being an avowed devotee of the See of Rome. The debate on ' Papists and Public Employments ' is full of life and fire, stirring the House to its depths. Colonel Strangways ' has a kindness for their persons, but would not have power in their hands to do mischief.'1 Mr. Powle declares that ' putting new converts into employment looks like a reward of their apostasy.'2/ Colonel Birch affirms that ' Ireland for fifty years in Queen , Elizabeth's time had no rebellion in it and good trade ; but when the Papists once got into office there, cheek-by-jowl with the Protestants, then they rebelled.'3 And it was at length resolved : — ' That all persons who shall refuse to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and to receive the Sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England, shall be incapable of all public employments Military ori Civil.'4 Thereon was based the ' Address of both Houses against the Growth of Popery/5 agreed to on March 7th, and already referred to ; and out of these grew the famous bill popularly known as the Test Act, described as a ' Bill to prevent the Growth of Popery/ and read a third time in the House of Commons on the 12th of March.6 This great crux in the debate was called, in relation to the Oaths of Allegi ance and Supremacy, 'the further test'7 That was, in the language of Mr. Harwood's proviso, ' the renouncing of the doctrine of Transubstantiation.'8 Sir William Coventry ' thinks a further test requisite. The Sacrament they will take, and the Oath of Allegiance ; but not that of Supre macy — certain Bulls forbidding them. And the Pope may dispense with his own Bulls. This doctrine of Tran substantiation is part of their faith, and the Pope cannot dispense with it. Therefore, there is need of a further test ; 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 554. - Ibid. p. 555. 3 Ibid. p. 556. 4 Ibid. p. 556. 5 Ibid. p. 559. 6 Ibid. p. 561. 7 Ibid. p. 561. 8 Ibid. p. 562. chap. v. -| THE TERMS OF THE TEST 24 1 a.d. 1673J and this the Pope cannot take away.'1 Sir Thomas Clarges pertinently retorted : — ' If the Pope can dispense with one thing, he may dispense with the other !'2 Colonel Strangways insists : — ' You are now making distinction be twixt Protestants and Papists ; and a criterion you must have. He thinks that this test will puzzle all Priests and Jesuits.'3 The technical title of the bill, as finally amended, was : ' An Act for preventing Dangers that may happen by Popish Recusants/ the prevailing motive appearing even in these very words, — the ' preventing of dangers ' to the State, and not any undue interference in matters of private conscience. If any one did not like the test, let him withdraw from ' offices of trust and power,' and the nation would leave him in peace ! Archdeacon Echard declares that the Test Act was ' promoted by Shaftesbury to strike directly at the Duke of York and his friends/ though it smote at the same time other Dissenters. Papists, now thrust into all places of 'honour, trust, and profit/ had rendered themselves 'for midable ; ' and the ' apprehensions of Popery daily in creased.' It enacted that, besides the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, and the taking of the Sacrament accord ing to the usage of the Church of England, the follow ing TEST was also to be made and subscribed : — ' I, A. B., do declare that I do believe there is not any Transub stantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatso ever.'4 A most memorable incident marked the passing of this bill in the House of Lords. The King himself chose to be present. And the Earl of Bristol, a professed Roman Catholic, stood up strongly for the bill, showing, at the same time, an independence of the Pope of Rome and his abettors, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 562. 2 Ibid. p. 562. 3 Ibid. p. 563. 4 Hid, p. 564! VOL. I. n 242 BRISTOL'S MEMORABLE SPEECH Tbookii. ^ La.d. 1673 which the so-called ' Catholic ' Church had done well to cherish and perpetuate. He described himself as * a Catholic of the Church of Rome, not a Catholic of the Court of Rome.' Speaking of 'severe proceedings against those they called Papists/ he protested that ' only those of the Court of Rome did deserve that name.' He insisted that ' they should not speak here as Roman Catholics, but as faithful members of a Protestant Parliament' He praised the House of Commons ' as the best judges of the true temper of the nation ; and as incomparable in duty, loyalty, and affection to their Sovereign.' Declining to determine 'whether there have been any just grounds given for prevalent fears and jealousies by any violent men or by the unseasonable ambition of any Roman Catholics,' he vindicated on public grounds 'the necessity of a timely remedy ; ' and declared that the bill from the Commons was ' as full of moderation towards Catholics, as of prudence and security towards the Religion of the State.' There was ' no barring of them from the private and modest exercise of their Religion, no banishing of them to such a distance from Court, no putting in execution of the Penal Laws in force against them ; all their precau tions are reduced to this one intent, natural to all societies of men, of hindering a lesser opposite party from growing too strong for the greater and more considerable one' He admired the Commons ' in this just way of precaution,' that they had 'restrained themselves to this sole point — debar ring their adversaries from offices and places, and from accessions of wealth by favour of the Sovereign.' And he wound up this very remarkable speech with these sentences, which well deserve to be quoted in full: — ' After all, my Lords, how few do these sharp trials and tests of this Act regard? Only a few such Roman Catholics as would fain hold offices and places — at the price of hypocrisy and dissimulation of their true senti- chap. v. -| RESULTS OF THE TEST ACT 243 a.d. 1673 J ^J ments in religion ! My Lords, I am none of those ; none of those wherry-men in religion who look one way and row another.' 1 During the progress of this measure, and in view of its probable issues, the Court Party had influence enough to get an extraordinary ' Act of Grace ' put upon the Statute-Book, containing ' an absolute pardon for every offence against the State before the 25th March 1673;' and ' thereby placing/ says Ralph, 'the wicked and notorious mal-advisers of Charles for ever beyond the reach of justice.'2 But an outraged Nation soon found a way of driving its proverbial coach and six through such a preposterous law ! The meaning and aim of the ' Test Act,' passed on March 29th, immediately began to be seen. The Lord High Treasurer Clifford resigned ; and, disgusted at the King for sanctioning such a measure, retired to Devonshire and died in privacy. But, above all, the Duke of York himself, the Lord High Admiral of England, laid down his important trust, and felt the first shock of that rebellion which was yet to cost him and his heirs so great a price. How he met it, how he grappled with it, and was worsted in the struggle, is practically the one great theme of our History for the next fifteen years. Carolus Secundus Mendax has not yet finished his career of folly and hypocrisy on the throne. But, as the spirit of the Duke and of the Popish Party will be found to be the real and vital factor in the new triangular duel betwixt the Court, the Parliament, and the Nation, we shall tell the further story of Charles, side by side with that of his brother James, in our final chapters on the reactionary conflict. Meantime, observe how once again the wheel has turned. We have travelled from the ' Puritan Commonwealth ' to the 'growth of Popery.' With the 'growth of Popery/ there Jias arisen the apparently inevitable 'danger to the State.' 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 564, 566. 2 Ibid. p. 582. 244 LESSON FROM CONCESSIONS TO POPERY ["book n La.d. 1673 And, as we here lay aside our pen, that rather ugly ' Test Act ' has had to be concocted, not to touch conscience or matters of religion, but to ' disable ' Papists as the ' public enemies ' of the nation. If history has any truth to teach us, or any lesson to be enforced, the narrative of these concessions, -granted, abused, and cancelled, shall not have been here traced in vain. CHAPTER VI PROSPECTS AND PERILS OF POPERY ON THE THRONE A.D. 1673— 1685 WHEN this chapter opens, the 'Pensionary Parliament' is re-assembling on 20th October 1673, having been adjourned by the King since March 29th. What was uppermost in the heart of the nation was instantaneously manifested. A vote was carried, enjoining such Members as were of the Privy Council to acquaint his Majesty, ' that it is the humble desire of this House that the intended marriage of H.R.H. the Duke of York with the Princess of Modena be not consummated ; and that he may not be married to any person but of the Protestant Religion.' As matter of actual fact, the Duke was already married to her ' by proxy ; ' and Lord Peterborough had brought the lady as far as Paris on her way to England.1 This action of the Commons could have but one object ; and the gulf between the Country and the Heir Apparent visibly widened from day to daj'-. The Court resented it as a ' deadly affront ; ' and the Parliament was prorogued that very hour — almost before their vote could be placed on the records ! 2 A week later, October 27th, the eleventh session of the Pensionary Parliament was opened by a Speech from the King, regarding which a certain Mr. Boscawen afterwards complained that ' there was " money '' in the first place, and 1 Hansard's P. H. vol, iv. p. 585. 2 Ibid. p. 586. 245 246 THE DUKE'S MATCH ["book 11. La.d. 1673 " money in the last — it was all " money." ' x There was another feature, equally characteristic, the usual falsetto cry about his ' zeal for preserving the Established Religion and laws ! ' But the much-protesting of the Court seemed only to kindle the fire amongst the Commons. October 30th found them eagerly discussing how to utilise the 'Popery Bill,' alias the Test Act, so as ' to clear their own House and the House of Lords, and the Court itself, from the presence of Papists.' And it was at length resolved, ' that a bill be prepared for a General Test to distinguish between Protestants and Papists ; and those that shall refuse to take it be incapable to enjoy any office, Military or Civil, or to sit in either House of Parliament, or to come within five miles of the Court.' 2 Nay, on October 31st, the very strong step was taken, after a prolonged debate on ' supply/ of spoking the Constitutional wheel by positively ' refusing ' it in these words, which let in a flood of light upon the movements and countermove- ments of the time : — ' That this House, considering the present condition of the nation, will not take into any further debate or consideration any Aid or Supply or Charge, . . . before the kingdom be effectually secured from the dangers of Popery, and Popish counsels and counsellors, and the other present grievances be redressed/3 The same spirit fired them in their ' Second Address against the Duke's match/ Charles had answered their 'First Address' by informing them, on October 30th, 'that the Duke was already married according to the forms used amongst Princes/ and complaining that ' Parliament had shown no signs of disapproving his previous negotiations for marriage with another Catholic Princess ! ' 4 The Commons entirely ignoring the fact of the marriage, or rather indicating that 'such contracts by proxy are dissoluable/ insisted on 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 592. 2 Ibid. p. 592. 3 Ibid. p. 602. 4 i/,idi p_ 59I_ chap, vi.1 PROVOCATIONS AND GRIEVANCES 247 A.D. 1673J presenting the case from their point of view with redoubled emphasis, and a manifestly sincere anxiety : — ' Foreseeing the dangerous consequences which may follow the marriage of H.R.H. the Duke of York with any person of the Popish Religion/ they hold themselves bound in conscience and duty to represent the same to his Majesty. They point out that ' if this marriage do proceed/ it will ' disquiet his Protestant subjects at home, with endless jealousies and discontent ; ' and bring his Majesty into ' alliances abroad, prejudicial, if not destructive to the very Protestant Religion itself.' They have found 'by sad experience,' that such marriages ' increase and encourage Popery in this kingdom, and give opportunity to Priests and Jesuits ' to proselytise and seduce. They declare that, 'for another age at least/ this kingdom would thereby be placed under 'continual apprehensions of the growth of Popery, and of danger to the Protestant Religion.' Lastly, coming out with that patriotic Nationalism which really underlay all their action, they protest that ' the near kindred and relationship of this Princess to many eminent persons in the Court of Rome ' will give ' great opportunities ' to promote ' their designs and practices amongst us/ to ' penetrate ' into his Majesty's most secret councils, and more easily to ' discover ' the whole state of the kingdom ! x The complicated provocations of the time, however, could not be more graphically illustrated than by the debate a few days after this, November 3d, which led up to the vote, 'that the Standing Army is a grievance/2 Mr. Harwood, for instance, could without challenge declare, that the Commander-in-Chief was 'a foreigner/ Count Schomberg (afterwards Duke, killed at the Boyne, 1690) ; and further, that the second in the command was ' not only a Papist/ but a Frenchman by birth, Earl of Feversham, and nephew to Marshal Turenne. We 'cannot wonder/ any 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 602, 604. 2 Ibid. pp. 604, 608. 248 EVIL COUNSELLORS [book ii. La.d. 1674 more than worthy Mr. Harwbod, that these things 'have been spoken against as grievances ! ' 1 Finally, the strained relationship betwixt the Court and the Parliament may be seen in the smash-up of this session on the very next day, November 4th, when, on the Speaker taking the Chair, Sir Robert Thomas ' moved to take into consideration the business of Evil Counsellors as a grievance, and named the Duke of Lauderdale' for one. The word had ' scarcely escaped his lips,' when Black Rod was heard to 'be knocking vigorously at the door.' Thereon the Speaker ' leaped out of the Chair/ says Archdeacon Echard, ' and the House rose in great confusion ! ' The King had ' suddenly ' come to the Upper House, and now ' prorogued Parliament till the 7th January next,' considering it ' necessary to make a short recess, that all good men may recollect themselves ! ' But even in his most unbridled moment of despotism, Charles never omits his usual hollow declaration : — ' I will not be wanting to let all my subjects see that no care can be greater than my own in the effectual suppressing of Popery ! ' 2 The twelfth session of the Pensionary Parliament,3 opened January 7th and prorogued 24th February 1674, was largely occupied with proceedings against ' evil counsellors/ where in we see the responsibility of the Ministers and of Government painfully evolving itself. Three leaders of the Cabal were in turn accused, Lauderdale, Buckingham, and Arlington. For the House had, after long debate, resolved 'that grievances must in the first place be effectually re dressed, the Protestant Religion, liberties, and properties effectually secured, Popery suppressed, and persons or counsellors removed, who are Popishly affected, or other wise obnoxious or dangerous to the Government.'4 It seems strange to us that both Buckingham and Arlington 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 606. 2 Ibid. pp. 608-610. 3 Ibid. pp. 611-666. « Ibid. p. 624. chap, vi."] THE NON-RESISTING TEST 249 A.D, 1675J 'appeared'1 before the Commons, and answered ' questions,' and strove to vindicate themselves there, — the Lords merely recording, meanwhile, a standing order that this was 'an entrenchment upon their privileges.2 Our present aims will be sufficiently subserved by glanc ing at a few of the Articles against the Earl of Arlington. They are such as these: — That he was 'a constant and vehement promoter of Popery and Popish counsels;' . . . that he ' procured commissions for all the Papists lately in command ; ' . . . that he procured ' his Majesty's letter, admitting Irish Papists and rebels into corporations, com missions of the peace, and other offices of trust ; ' . . . that he had brought over ' the most violent and fiercest of them to command companies and regiments in England, to the great dishonour and danger of this kingdom ; ' . . . that he "entertained and lodged in his family a Popish Priest, contrary to the laws ; ' . . . and that he had ' procured the release of several Irish Papists, deeply engaged in the horrid rebellion there.'3 We are not further concerned to study the grounds and causes of his acquittal ; but these allegations reveal the temper of the nation. These are the things which Popery claimed, which the Court Party were too willing to concede, and which the Parliament were determined to refuse in the interests of safety and freedom. In the thirteenth session of the Pensionary Parliament,4 which lasted from April 13th to 9th June 1675, the most memorable event was the passing of the Non-Resisting Test though the House of Lords. Ralph calls it 'the grand push, according to the Royalists, to disarm disaffection and Re publicanism, but, according to the Patriots, to extinguish the last spark of English liberty.' 5 This is the main subject referred to in Locke's famous ' Letter from a Person of Quality 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 634, 642, 653. 2 Ibid. p. 649. . 3 Ibid. pp. 650-652. 4 Ibid. pp. 670-740. 5 Ibid. p. 714. 250 TERMS OF NON-RESISTING OATH [book n. La.d. 1675 to his Friend in the Country! It gives an account of the ' debates and resolutions ' in the House of Lords concerning the 'bill to prevent the dangers which may arise from persons disaffected to the Government/ This attempt to get the doctrine of Passive Obedience enacted into a statute was avowedly in the interests of Absolutism, and thereby directly in the interests of Popery. One party called it a ' moderate security to the Church and Crown.' Their opponents described it as a ' dis-settlement of the whole birthright of England.' It was carried through its first stage only after ' five days' debate,' and only in the face of a ' protest ' signed by twelve Peers, urging that the bill 'struck at the root of all Government, since it took away freedom of vote and of debate/ for he that ' swore never to "alter" parted with his legislative power, and became per jured by endeavouring to amend.' J The controversy raged on in the House of Lords 'for sixteen or seventeen days ; ' and Andrew Marvell regards it as ' the greatest debate that perhaps had ever been in any Parliament' He compares these Lords, ' that stood up now for English Liberties/ to their noble 'ancestors' who won the Magna Charta.2 ' Protestation ' followed upon ' protesta tion' amongst the dissentient Peers. The Test passed through a fiery trial, every clause being separately and keenly disputed. It pleased the Court Party ; it was ac ceptable to the Bishops ; it was carried by a ' majority ' of the Lords. But other quarrels arose, and it was never submitted to the Commons. As it came, however, to be virtually the distinctive badge of the Popishly-affected Party, we quote here the form in which it finally issued from the Upper House : — ' I, A. B., do declare that it is not lawful, on any pretence whatsoever, to take up arms against the King ; and I do abhor the traitorous position of taking arms by his authority against 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 715. » Ibid. p. 720. chap, vi.-] a BILL FACING BOTH WAYS 25 1 A.D. 1677J his person, or against those that are commissioned by him, according to law, in time of rebellion and war, and acting in pursuance of such commission. I, A. B., do swear that I will not endeavour any alteration of the Protestant Religion, now established by law in the Church of England ; nor will I endeavour any alteration in the government in Church or State, as it is by law established.' 1 One reflects with ever-growing amazement — had their Lordships' ideas of 'Passive Obedience' and 'Non-Resist ance' actually been accepted and acted upon, how much would Britain, would the world, have lost ? During the fifteenth session of the Pensionary Parlia ment,2 opened on 15 th February 1677, and prorogued on 13th May 1678, a very extraordinary bill was brought in, debated, committed, but afterwards lost sight of. As an interpreter of many things, it deserves our attention here. It was described as a 'Bill for securing the Protestant Religion, by educating the Children of the Royal Family therein.' 3 By one party it was called a ' Bill against Popery ; ' and by the other, a ' Popish Bill ; ' being of the Janus kind. Pretending to educate the Royal children as ' Protestants/ it allowed at the same time that the King of England might be a Papist if he pleased, — the only penalty being that, in that case, ' his power of filling Ecclesiastical vacancies would devolve upon the Bishops.' Practically it was regarded as a 'compromise betwixt the Church of England and the Duke of York' — the 'fine' to be exacted from him, when King and Papist, to be paid over into the hands of the Prelates. In the debate, 20th March 1677, Sir Harbottle Grimstone ' wonders that this bill passed the Lords, and made so little noise ; ' he thinks that there is ' a vizard upon its face, and bespeaks a helping hand from every gentleman there to pull 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 720. 2 Ibid. pp. 807-977. 3 Ibid. p. £53. 2 52 A BILL THAT BELIED ITS TITLE [book n. J La.d. 1677 it off/ x that the ' spots ' may be seen. When the second reading came on, March 27th, ' the House for some time sat very silent' Mr. Vaughan then declared that ' the bill was fatal to the Crown/ and that he ' would throw it out,' Mr. Marvell attacked the terms of the bill, complaining that they had no right to anticipate ' that possibly the Crown might devolve on a Popish Government' He declared the bill to be ' a great invasion on the King's prerogative ; ' and chaffed the nine Bishops as ' no more entitled to administer this test to the King than any nine physicians of the Royal College.' 2 Whoever really promoted this bill, it was certainly utilised to ' defame ' and disparage the Clergy — as if they were willing enough to see a Papist on the throne, provided only their own interests and promotions were well secured. The Duke and his friends were throwing out feelers on every side, to learn how and on what conditions the Crown would be allowed to settle upon Popish brows. Of a very similar kind was another bill that came from the Lords on April 4th, but fared even worse at the hand of the Commons. It was entitled, ' An Act for preserving of the Protestant Religion, and the more effectual Conviction and Prosecution of Popish Recusants.'3 It had an easy passage through the Upper House ; but in the Commons, Mr. Sacheverell at once and keenly described it as a ' tolera tion of Popery, — putting but 1 2d. a Sunday of difference betwixt the best Protestant and severest Papist.' The bill ' puts Protestant Recusants into a worse condition than the Popish.' 4 Some proposing to keep the title and amend the bill, Sir Harbottle Grimstone protested : — ' As soon make a good fan out of a pig's tail, as a good bill out of this ! ' Finally, the bill was not only rejected, but a special 'mark of infamy ' was appended to the vote in the Records, thus : — ' Upon reading the said bill, and opening the substance 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 853, 854. 2 Ibid. pp. 855-857. 3 Ibid. p. 861. 4 Ibid. p. 861. chap, vi.l MARY AND THE PRINCE OF ORANGE 253 A.D. 1 677 J thereof to the House, it appeared to be much different from the title; and thereupon the House, nem. con., rejected the same.' This method of procedure was so exceptional that ' nothing but the crimes of the bill could have rendered it excusable.'1 This session was distinguished by its many 'adjourn ments.' Marvell says : — ' They were kicked from adjourn ment to adjournment, as from one stair down to another ; and when they were at the bottom, kicked up again, having no mind yet to go out of doors.' 2 During one of these, from April 1677 to the following January, an event was con summated in which the nation greatly rejoiced. The Duke of York having no son, the Princess Mary, his daughter, was next Heir Apparent after himself. She had been educated as a Protestant ; and Charles now proposed to give her in mar riage to his nephew, the Prince of Orange. The Prince came to the King at Newmarket, was 'very graciously re ceived,' made his own terms with his uncle in rather ' a cold and severe manner/ being ' punctiliously honourable,' refused for any 'interest or politics' to match himself with the Princess till satisfied of her ' amiability ' and of his prospects of 'happiness' with her, and finally insisted upon ' complet ing the marriage/ before hearing any of the ' conditions of a proposed general peace.' 3 Such is the first passing across the Parliamentary stage of a grave, strong, self-centred, level-headed statesman and ruler of men, with whom this after History will have much to do. Charles thought to play with him as a cipher in the political game. But the young Prince stood up with his back square against a principle ; and the King had to grant every one of his demands. The Duke agreed, with what grace we know not, yet not a little ' surprised.' Two more ant agonistic souls, as we shall see, than his and that of his young son-in-law never crossed each other's path ; each, strong of will, almost obstinate ; but strength in the one led on to 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 863. 2 Ibid. p. 896. 3 Bid. pp. 893, 894. 2 54 DANGERS FROM THE POPISH PARTY ["book n. J La.d. 1678 doom, in the other to glory and honour. This was their first meeting. Time will soon show us their last. Meanwhile, mark the good effects of this alliance upon the spirit of the nation. No sooner did Parliament as semble again, January 1678, than the Commons were eager in rendering 'thanks' to his Majesty for his great care 'for the preservation and encouragement of the Protestant Re ligion, by concluding a marriage between the Lady Mary, your Majesty's niece, and the Prince of Orange, being a Prince professing the same Religion with us, and engaged in arms for the defence of the common cause of Christendom.' J Another flowing tide — had Charles but known how to breast it and ride safely away from amongst rocks and shallows. A great debate was entered upon, 14th March 1678, on the ' State of the Nation/2 having very special reference to the desire for ' war with France/ and for removal of ' evil coun sellors.' Sir John Reresby says : — ' Everything turned upon " the state of the kingdom with respect to Popery." ' 3 Lord Russell, afterwards beheaded in 1683 for his 'inviolable attachment to the Protestant Religion, ' wished to ' set the saddle on the right horse ;' and moved a ' Committee of the whole House, to consider the sad and deplorable condition we are in, and the apprehensions we are under, of Popery, and of a Standing Army ; and that we may consider of some way to save ourselves from ruin.' 4 Having agreed upon an ' Address ' urging the King to declare war against France, they resolved to ask the ' con currence' of the Lords, and then prepared their 'reasons '5 to be urged in a conference of both Houses concerning a further ' danger to the nation by the growth of Popery.' They call attention therein to the ' restless endeavours of the Priests and Jesuits and other Popish Recusants/ and the ' remissness and connivancy of his Majesty's officers and ministers ol 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 907. 2 Ibid. pp. 951-956. 3 Ibid. p. 952. 4 Ibid. p. 953. 5 Ibid. pp. 955-956. chap, vi.l CASE OF SIR SOLOMON SWALE 255 A.D. 1678 J justice;' and they long for some effectual 'remedy.' They set forth at length the ' causes and grounds ' of failure in the past, and earnestly desire their Lordships to consider the * dangers and consequences ' that may befall this kingdom ; and to expedite ' effectual remedies/ — intimating that they 'will not consent to lay further charges' upon the people, till the kingdom be 'secured against the prevalency and countenance given to the Popish Party.' x Out of this arose the address to remove 'Evil Counsellors/ and particularly, by name, ' the Duke of Lauderdale ; ' at which his Majesty broke into an angry speech, and, on May 13th, suddenly prorogued the Parliament, saying to the House of Lords :— ' I have received an Address of such a nature from the House of Commons as I cannot but resent very highly.' 2 So he gave them a recess of ten days, 'thinking thereby to cool their temper against the Court. The sixteenth session of this same Pensionary Parlia ment,3 opened 23d May, and prorogued 20th June 1678, was marked by several exciting episodes, and was followed by the unmasking of an infamous Conspiracy. For instance, on June 8th we find the Commons discuss ing the case of Sir Solomon Swale. He had been convicted at the Old Bailey of ' Popish Recusancy ; ' and it was argued that he could not therefore sit as a Member of Parliament.4 It appears that he was ordered on June 10th to bring a 'certificate of Conformity ;' but when, on June 19th, he sent a letter of apology of a rather shuffling character, it was denounced as ' a mere trick/ and the severest measures were advocated. Sir Thomas Meres declared ' that he was con victed a year and a half ago ; that he had received two or three admonitions ; and that there could be no longer forbearance.' Sir Robert Sawyer explicitly pointed out that a ' convicted ' Popish Recusant (refusing the Oaths of 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 964-966. 2 Ibid. pp. 970-977. 3 Ibid. pp. 977-1006. 4 Ibid. p. 986. 256 EXCLUSION OF PAPISTS FROM PARLIAMENT rB00K »• la.d. 1678 Allegiance and Supremacy) ' cannot come near the King's person, and a fortiori cannot be of the great Council of the Nation.' And he summed up the argument with great precision in these vital words : — ' Whoever disables himself from his attendance in Parliament, you ought to discharge.' Accordingly the question was put and carried in this form : — ' That whereas it appears to the House that Sir Solomon Swale is convicted of Popish Recusancy ; and having been divers times called upon by this House to signify his conformity to the Church of England, which he hath not done in pursuance to a peremptory order of this House, — ordered that the said Sir Solomon Swale be discharged from the service of this House ; and that a new writ be issued out for the choice of another Member to serve in his place, for the borough of Aldborough in the county of York.' 1 Thus he was finally expelled. But side by side with this transaction went on the dis cussion upon a bill, whose main bearing apparently would be against the Upper House, on this same question of Popish Recusancy. It was read a second time on June 12th, and is described as a ' Bill for Hindering Papists to sit in either House of Parliament, without taking the Oaths of Allegi ance and Supremacy, and the Test' The debate was keen and threatened to trench on personalities. Sir John Trevor thought it ' vain to send it up to the Lords ; it had been three times there already, and no despatch ; there were so many Papists in that House ; . . . and would have the bill look forward, that no Lords shall sit there, either by descent, or called by writ, that shall not take the Oaths pre scribed in the bill.' Sir Thomas Littleton maintained that ' if this bill would not pass, no bill that you can make against Popery will ever hold. Trevor's argument is, as if a man were ready to die of an acute distemper, and a physician were to give him a remedy to operate seven years hence ! ' 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 1002, 1003. chap, vi.l DISCOVERY OF POPISH PLOT 257 a.d. 1678J •" Sir Charles Wheeler objected to ' these extreme and violent ways/ asking, ' Cannot a Lord that is not a Protestant give a vote whether leather shall be transported, as well as a Commoner?' Yet he also strongly contended that 'the Catholic Religion is idolatry.' And Mr. Powle thought the Bill ' well calculated for the time ; it meddles with nothing but keeping Papists out of the Government ; and I wish that Protestants, all the world over (in Popish countries) had no more severe treatment' 1 We must note this bill, and other similar movements for ' incapacitating Papists.' In the turmoil of the times, they are straws whirled into view for a moment, and then again lost to sight. But they all help us to appreciate and under stand the great events that are now looming nearer and nearer, and to form a just and unprejudiced judgment on the same. The House was prorogued till August, and then till October following. But, in the recess,2 the nation was thrown into a ferment by the discovery or invention of the Popish Plot. Readers must weigh evidence for themselves. We here have to deal exclusively with Parliamentary action and its issues. Titus Oates, ex-Baptist minister, ex-Curate and Navy Chaplain, and ex-Jesuit, is not to be admired or trusted. His story, but for incriminating conduct on the part of others, would probably have had no effect whatever. Hume may be quoted as having touched the true springs of the time, when he writes in his calm and judicious way : — ' It is certain that the restless and enterprising spirit of the Catholic Church, particularly of the Jesuits, ... is in some degree dangerous to every other communion, . . . and, in one sense, there is a Popish plot perpetually carrying on against all States — Protestant, Pagan, or Mohammedan.' 3 This great affair was launched upon the King's notice by the warning of Kirby a chemist, as he was walking in the park on August 12th. Thereon followed communications 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 990-92. 2 Ibid.loo6-lS- s Ibid. p. 1012. VOL. I. R 258 SWORN INFORMATIONS [book ii. La.d. 1678 from a certain clergyman of the Church of England, Dr. Tongue. And finally there came the sworn informations of Oates before the magistrate, Sir Edmondbury Godfrey; and, thereafter, before the Privy Council and the Parliament. It was all, in brief, to this effect : J — ' That the Pope, by advice of the Propaganda, had reassumed the sovereignty of these kingdoms ; that he had delegated his supreme power to the Society of the Jesuits ; that the General of that Order, De Oliva, had already prepared commissions for all the chief Civil and Military offices, as well as the dignities of the Church ; that the King, whom the Jesuits called the " Black Bastard," had been solemnly tried in their Provincial Council, condemned as a heretic, and a resolution taken to put him to death ; that the Confessor of the French King, Father La Chaise,2 had consigned .£10,000 to London to be paid to the successful assassin ; that £10,000 had been offered to the Queen's physician, Sir George Wakeman, who stickled for fifteen, and had received £5000 in advance ; that £10,000 were to come from the Jesuits of Spain, and six from the Prior of the Benedic tines ; that, to make doubly sure, four Irish ruffians had been hired at twenty guineas apiece to stab the King at Windsor; that Grove and Pickering were hired to shoot him with silver bullets, the one to receive £15,000 — the other, being a pious man, to be rewarded with 30,000 Masses; that Coniers, the Jesuit, had a ten shilling knife ready for the purpose; that fifty Jesuits met in May last at the White Horse Tavern, and agreed upon the King's death ; that Oates carried notes and messages from one cabal of them to another; that, in short, it was deter mined, if Charles did not become R.C. ( = Roman Catholic), he should no longer be C.R. ( = Charles Rex); that, still further, the Jesuits had caused the Great Fire of London, and were projecting others, in all the chief cities as well, to 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1007. " Alias Le Shee. chap. vi. -| COLEMAN'S LETTERS 259 a.d. 1678 J 3V be started simultaneously by fireballs which they called " Teuxbury mustard pills ; " that insurrections and massacres were projected in all the three kingdoms — Coleman, the secretary to the late Duchess of York, having a special hand along with the French King.in firing the rebellion in Ireland ; and finally, after all this havoc, the Crown was to be offered to the Duke of York, but only on condition that he received it as a gift from the Pope, and consented to the utter extirpation of the Protestant Religion, which, if he refused, then by poison or assassination — " To pot James must go! " n The Popish Plot, as presented by Oates, had the look of a devil's nightmare ; asd had it stood alone would probably never have been seriously considered. But Coleman's letters were seized ; and there, in actual correspondence with such representative Papists as La Chaise, in Paris, and the Nuncio at Brussels, 2 an actual Popish Plot, of an alarming enough kind, was veritably revealed. Coleman writes of ' the mighty work on hand ; . . . never such hopes since the days of Queen Mary ; . . . a Prince (such a miracle ! ) zealous of being the author and instrument of so glorious a work; . . . money cannot fail of persuading the King to anything ; . . . for £300,000 from Lewis, the Parliament could be dis solved; ... if Parliament should be allowed to meet again, the outcome would be war with France ; . . . and further, the assembling of Parliament so late as April in the year 1675, had, it appeared, been brought about by the Catholic and French party, in order to show the Dutch and their confederates that they could count on no assistance from England.' 3 With the publication of these letters the real panic began'. The heir to the Crown was not only a bigoted Papist, he was also a willing tool in the hands of ' foreign ' conspirators against the Liberties of England. The King himself was willing to intrigue, for ' foreign gold,' against his 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 1007-1010. 2 Ibid. p. ion. 3 Ibid. pp. 1011-1013. 260 MURDER OF SIR E. GODFREY [book n. La.d. 1678 own Parliament and People. Coleman's plot was beyond question, whatever it might really imply ; and now Oates's Plot was universally and passionately believed in too. The passion, however, was immediately lashed into a fury, when, on October 17th, the magistrate, Sir Edmondbury Godfrey, who had taken Oates's evidence, was found ' lying in a ditch at Primrose Hill, apparently strangled first, but not robbed, and his own sword left sticking through his body.' The belief was universal that he had been assassinated by the Papists. His fate was regarded as prophetic of what was in store for every Protestant. The city was placed in a posture of defence, and ' chains and posts ' were put up ; the Chamberlain, Sir Thomas Player, urging on the citizens to these precautions, 'lest they should rise next morning with their throats cut ! ' Godfrey's corpse was ' exposed publicly to the vast crowds on the streets;' at his funeral 'seventy-two Clergymen marched before, and a thousand distinguished Personages followed after.' 1 Thus, in the midst of an almost unparalleled excitement, the Pensionary Parliament was again called together. The seventeenth session, and the last of this second Long Parliament, began on October 21st, and was prorogued on 30th December 1678. The King, in his opening speech, warily said : — ' I have been informed of a design against my person by the Jesuits;'2 but intimated his resolution to ' leave the matter to the course of the law : ' his wish being to keep the affair out of the debates altogether, and have it settled more quickly amongst the Judges. And then Charles virtuously denounced those ' who have been tampering in a high degree by Foreigners, and contriving how to introduce Popery amongst us ! ' 2 While Lord Chancellor Finch, gravely sustaining the ingenuous delusion, encouraged them, 'lest the fears of Popery might too much disgust them,' to consider that they had ' now one security more ; since that, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 1013-1015. 2 Ibid. pp. 1016, 1017. chap, vi."] ADDRESS AGAINST RECUSANTS 261 a.d. 1678 J which was always the interest of his Majesty's honour and conscience, had now become the interest of his person too — to protect the Protestant Religion and to prevent the swarming of Seminary Priests ! ' 1 But nothing could turn aside the Commons from what they deemed vital to the safety and welfare of the nation. They instantaneously resolved : — ' To consider ways and means for the preservation of his Majesty's person ; . . . to present an address to his Majesty for the removal of Popish Recusants from London, . . . and to inquire into Sir Edmondbury Godfrey's murder, as also into the Popish Plot' Further, both Houses petitioned for the appointment of a solemn ' Public Fast,' which was ultimately held on November 1 3th, bewailing ' the horrible design against the King's sacred life/ and pointing out ' the fatal consequences ' of such an attempt, and the dangers of ' the subversion of the Protestant Religion and Government of this realm.' 2 On October 26th, the next step was taken by both Houses presenting to the King an ' address against Popish Recusants.'3 They had considered ' the bloody and traitorous designs of Popish Recusants/ and they do 'most humbly beseech his Majesty' to command by Royal Proclamation ' all and every such person and persons, being Popish Recusants or so reputed, forthwith, under pains and penalties, to depart and retire from the Royal Palaces, the cities of London and Westminster, and all other places within ten miles of the same.' They then specify certain ' householders, being tradesmen,' who, on explicit conditions being fulfilled, may be excepted ; and they petition for the 'administration of the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy to all Popish Re cusants or suspects by the two nearest Justices of the Peace, for the imprisonment of all who refuse, and for procedure against them according to law.' And they impatiently 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 1019, 1020. 2 Ibid. p. 1021. 3 Ibid p. 1022. 262 BILL TO DISABLE PAPISTS [B00K ]}• La.d. 1678 long for 'the passing of some more effectual law for pre venting said Popish Conspiracies/ 1 and for preservation of ' his Majesty's sacred person, and the Religion and Govern ment by law established.' To all these things, the King at once assented. And the House, busy for days on end examining ' witnesses and papers/ and unravelling the Plot, passed meanwhile, just as a little interlude, and to 'prevent mischiefs' in the interval, a 'Bill to disable Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament' 2 Finally, on November 1st, we find the solemnly recorded Verdict and Resolution of the Commons regarding the Plot placed upon the Journals in these words : — ' Resolved, — That, upon the evidence that has already appeared to the House, this House is of opinion that there hath been and still is a damnable and hellish Plot, contrived and carried on by Popish Recusants, for the assassinating and murdering of the King, and for subverting the Government, and rooting out and destroying the Protestant Religion.' Whereon, a conference with the Lords was asked and obtained for the consideration of ' remedies fit and suitable ; ' and, the Upper House ' heartily concurring,' both resolved ' to sit de die in diem, forenoon and afternoon, for the safety of the King, and Kingdom.' 3 The temper of Parliament may be understood from the fact that all this was carried nem. con., and carried in a single day ! On November 4th, we reach what was really after all the vital question, the debate on Lord Russell's motion for the ' Removing of the Duke of York,' in these terms : — ' That the Duke of York might withdraw himself from the King's person and councils. 4 The discussion was prolonged and fiery, and was adjourned till the 8th. The King himself came down to the House of Peers on November 9th, and in presence of both Houses, declared, 'as to ways and means 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 1022, 1023. - Ibid. p. 1024. 3 Ibid. pp. 1025, 1026. 4 Ibid. pp. 1026-1035. chap, vii REMOVING THE DUKE OF YORK 263 A.D. 1678 J for the firm security of the Protestant Religion,' that whatso ever bills they would present 'to make them safe in the reign of his successor' would have his ready concurrence, provided they did not ' impeach the right of Succession ' in the true line, nor restrain 'the just rights' of any Protestant successor.1 And on November 21st, we find the debate raging round and round the same issue, though now in connection with the ' Lords' Proviso/ in the bill for ' disabling' Papists, — 'exempting the Duke of York from taking the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and the Declaration.' 2 This was settling the adjourned debate about 'removing' the Duke by a sort of side wind. After a great struggle, the Commons agreed to the Proviso, but only by 158 to 156. The Duke himself, according to Burnet, had pleaded for it in the House of Lords 'with tears in his eyes-;' pledging him self that whatever his Religion might be, it should only be a private thing between God and his own soul, and that no effect of it should ever appear in the Government' 3 The remaining days of this session all took colour more or less directly from the revelations of Oates, and Bedloe his rival, another ex-Jesuit The Queen was charged as implicated in these traitorous designs ; but Charles, tired as he was of his barren consort, resented somewhat keenly the 'Address for her Removal from the Court.'4 Five Popish Lords were 'impeached by the Commons,' and sent to the Tower to await their trial, — Arundel, Powis, Stafford, Petre, and Bellasis.5 The Lord Treasurer Danby, on charges founded upon his own letters to Montagu while Ambassador at Paris, was served with ' Articles of Impeachment,' chiefly accusing him of ' selling them to the French ; ' and of con cealing, after he had knowledge of it, the late horrid and bloody Plot' But the King himself was directly implicated in the guilty and traitorous demand of '£300,000 a year from 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 1035, 1036. 2 Ibid. pp. 1039-1045. 3 Ibid. p. 1045. 4 Ibid. p. 1050. 6 Ibid. p. 1053. 264 PENSIONARY PARLIAMENT DISSOLVED ["book II. La.d. 1679 the King of France, for three years, as the price of certain conditions of peace,' to be carried through against the will or desire of his own Parliament. He determined therefore, at all hazards, to cut short the impeachment of Danby ; and so prorogued the Parliament on December 30th, protesting, — ' I think all of you are witnesses that I have been ill-used.'1 Hopeless of any further good service from it, Charles dissolved the Pensionary Parliament on 24th January 1679. 2 This second Long Parliament in our history, elected within twelve months of the Royalist Restoration, and sitting till now, began in fervid enthusiasm for the King, and ended amidst distrust and suspicion not less violent than that which cost his father the Crown. There were two overt causes for this wild transformation — Foreign Alliances and Popish Concessions ; but these two, closely looked at, really ran up into one, and were so regarded practically by the nation, for Charles's dependence on France meant ultimately England s submission to Rome. 3 That was, as heretofore, the issue around which the struggle raged. The trial and execution of the supposed leaders in the Plot, bearing all on this one issue, kept the mind of the nation at boiling-point through the months of January and February. On evidence, which has appeared to the calmer heads of later times flimsy if not positively fraudulent, Coleman, Grove, and Pickering, and ' Father' Ireland, loudly protesting their innocence, were nevertheless executed with all but universal approval, as guilty in the Plot ; and Hill, Green, and Berry for Godfrey's murder.4 The public ferment instead of being assuaged was fed and heightened by these trials, and seemed to hunger for other and higher victims. Hence it happened that the new Parliament, which Charles felt himself constrained for financial and other irresistible reasons to call together, was elected in the midst 1 Hansard's/3. H. vol. iv. pp. 1053-1074. 2 Ibid. p. 1074. 3 Ibid. p. 1075. 4 Ibid. pp. 1075-1077. chap. vi.-| THE DUKE'S WITHDRAWAL 265 a.d. 1679 -1 of what amounted to an anti- Popish frenzy. The Court partisans exerted their utmost influence, but all in vain. The Parliamentary representatives, most violently hostile to the ' Popishly-affected Party ' and to ' dependence on France/ were everywhere carrying the votes of the people.1 Charles, alarmed for once out of his Epicurean self-indulgence, roused himself to action. He induced the now deeply-hated Duke of York to 'withdraw beyond sea/ which he did on these conditions : — First, that the King gave him ' a written order ' to that effect, lest his absence should indicate fear or guilt ; and second, that the King, in full Council, should make declaration of the 'illegitimacy of Monmouth,' his son by Lucy Walters.2 Both conditions were accepted: James withdrew to Brussels ; and Parliament met on 6th March 1679. The King's opening speech was full of ' the Plot ' and of Godfrey's murder, and he declared : — ' I am ready to join in the making of such further laws as may be necessary for the Securing of the Kingdom against Popery.' As usual, of course, he solemnly assured them that he would 'with his life defend both the Protestant Religion and the laws of this kingdom.'3 Yet the very first thing he did was to enter into a Constitutional wrangle with the Commons over the election of their Speaker. They chose an active anti-Popery man, Mr. Seymour. The King refused to give him the usual formal approval, and commanded them to choose another. The debate over this raged on, with representation, reply, and counter-reply, till March 13th, when the King, to find a way out of the blunder, prorogued the Parliament for two days. 4 The second session was opened on March 15 th, and the Commons, on the motion of Lord Russell, to put an end to 'the late unhappy differences,' chose Mr. Serjeant Gregory, 1 Hansard's/". H. vol. iv. p. 1078. ' Ibid. pp. 1078, io?y. 3 Ibid. p. 1085. 4 Ibid. pp. 1092-1111. 266 SHAFTESBURY ON POPERY AND SLAVERY [BOOKJi. LA.D.1679 whom the King at once 'approved.'1 The 20th and 21st of March were full of proposals about a ' Committee of Secrecy/ about the ' Five Popish Lords,' about the ' impeachment ' of Danby, about further ' informations ' regarding the Plot, and about 'Mr. Bedloe's' reward and protection. And the latter day wound up with again deliberately placing on record their finding as to the reality of the Plot, in these terms : — ' The House doth declare that they are fully satisfied by the proofs they have heard, that there now is, and, for divers years last past, hath been a horrid and treasonable Plot and Conspiracy, contrived and carried on by those of the Popish Religion, for the murdering his Majesty's sacred person, and for subverting the Protestant Religion and the ancient and well-established Government of this kingdom.' 2 This vote was concurred in by the Lords nem. con. ; and, in any candid attempt to judge of these times, must necessarily have great weight. On March 25th, the Earl of Shaftesbury made a strong speech in the House of Lords, on a motion for inquiry into 'the State of the Nation.' Professing not to seek to be ' popular/ but to follow ' the dictates of the Spirit within,' he delivered himself, amongst other sharp truths, of the following sentences : — 'Popery and Slavery like two sisters go hand in hand, and sometimes one goes first, sometimes the other ; but wherever one enters, the other is always following close at hand. In England, Popery was to have brought in Slavery; in Scotland, Slavery went before, and Popery was to follow.' 3 No one can deny the grip and force of these epigrammatic words, as interpreting the history of the times,— though grave questions may be raised as to Shaftesbury's sincerity. But it was on the 27th April 1679 that the debate was opened, which, under one phase or another, raged on through all the remaining years of this reign, and was only closed 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. nil, 1112. 2 Ibid. pp. I n 3, 1 1 14. 3 Ibid. p. ill:. chap. vi. "1 PROSPECT OF A POPISH SUCCESSOR 267 A.D. 1679 J abruptly by Parliament after Parliament being angrily dis solved. It referred to the Succession to the Crown, and had for its aim the exclusion of the Duke of York from the throne. The motion on its first appearance had a perfectly innocent look, viz. : — ' To consider how to preserve the King's person from the attempts and conspiracies of Papists, etc/ x But in the debate Sir Thomas Player only ex pressed what was ten times over repeated, when he said plainly : — ' We are come to that pass now, that Protestants and Papists cannot live together in England ; and while the Papists have a prospect of a Popish Successor they will never be quiet, but be always making attempts upon the King's person.'2 Sir Francis Russell moved for an ex planatory vote, ' that the Duke of York is the occasion of all these jealousies of the Papists/ and to ask the con currence of the Lords that they might have some ground to go upon.3 Lord Russell warmly declared : — ' We are but trifling hitherto. If we do not something relative to the Succession, we must resolve, when we have a Prince of the Popish Religion, either to be Papist or to burn. I will do neither ! ' 3 And finally, Mr. Hampden submitted a pro posal which was carried, ne?n. con., in these terms : — 'That the Duke of York, being a Papist, and the hopes of his coming such to the Crown, have given the greatest countenance and encouragement to the present conspiracies and designs of the Papists against the King and the Protestant Religion.' In this resolution the Lords concurred, but with a manifest grudge, inserting the word ' unwillingly '3 before given, — to indicate their opinion that the Duke's being a Papist had made him unintentionally the occasion of the Plot. The King protesting that in all that pertained to the public security he would ' not follow their zeal but lead it,' appeared before both Houses on April 30th, and commanded 1 Hansard's /'. H. vol. iv. p. 1 1 25. 2 Ibid. p. 1 126. 3 Ibid. p. 1127. 268 PROFERRED LIMITATIONS OF THE CROWN [book ii. La.d. 1679 the Lord Chancellor to deliver his answer to them ' relative to the Succession.' 1 He was ' ready to consent to any laws securing and perpetuating their Religion and Liberty/ short of 'altering the descent of the Crown in the right line or defeating the Succession.' And in order that it may ' never be in the power of any Papist, should the Crown descend upon him,' to make any such changes either in Church or State, his Majesty was ' willing, first, to distinguish a Pro testant from a Popish Successor ; then, secondly, so as to limit and to circumscribe the authority of a Popish Successor, in these cases following, that he may be dis abled to do any harm.' The ' cases ' referred to are ' the Church,' and preferments to Ecclesiastical benefices ; the ' State/ and the Civil part of Government, especially the being of Parliaments ; the places of ' Trust/ such as Privy Councillors, Judges, and Justices of Peace ; the ' Military,' particularly as to Lord-Lieutenants and Officers ; — in all these respects, the Royal Prerogative was to pass to Parliament, or others duly appointed to exercise it, while a Papist sat on the throne. After all which the complaisant Chancellor might well add : — ' It is hard to invent another restraint to be put upon a Popish Successor, . . . but yet if anything else can occur to the wisdom of Parliament, which may further secure Religion and Liberty against a Popish Successor, without defeating the right of Succession itself, his Majesty will most readily consent to it.' In view of these declarations, we can well believe Burnet when he writes that the Duke at Brussels, hearing of the King's extraordinary concessions, was ' struck with the news/ was ' surprised and mortified.'2 He could not understand his mendacious brother, even though the lies were intended to promote his own interests ! The Commons, in reply, resumed their previous debate 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1128. 2 Ibid. pp. 1128, 1 129. chap, vi.1 BILL TO DISABLE THE DUKE 269 A.D. 1679 J on ' the ways and means ' both for ' preserving ' the King's life and for ' securing ' the Protestant Religion. Mr. Bennet moved for an Address to the King 'that the Duke might not come back again without the consent of his Majesty and of the two Houses of Parliament'1 Mr. Pilkington would humbly pray the King ' that the Duke may come over, that we may impeach him of High Treason.' Sir John Knight declared : — ' It is impossible that the Protestant religion should be preserved, under a Popish Prince ! ... If the Pope gets his great toe into England, all his body will follow.'2 Mr. Secretary Coventry asked: — 'Will any man give the Duke less law than the worst felons have — to banish and disinherit him without so much as hearing him ? . . . Acts of Parliament, we know, have not kept Succession out of the right line, but brought in blood and sword.'3 Mr. Hampden wittily protested : — ' For us to go about to tie a Popish Successor with laws for preservation of the Pro testant Religion is binding Samson with withes. He will break them when he is awake ! ' 4 Sir F. Winnington concisely retorted on the opponents : — ' As this bill will be hard for the Duke, so it is hard for us to be de prived of our Civil Liberties, which will be at the power of a Prince that governs as the Pope shall give his de termination.' 5 After much debate, and some ' contest for candles or no candles/ the vote was carried in these words : — ' Resolved, — That a bill be brought in to disable the Duke of York to inherit the Imperial Crown of the realm.'6 And side by side with this, as buttressing it, another resolution was passed, nem. con., and an Address to the King founded thereon, pledging the House 'to stand by his Majesty with their lives and fortunes, in defence of the King's person, and of the Protestant religion ; ' 6 and declaring that if he should 1 Hansard's/". H. vol. iv. p. 1131. 2 Ibid. p. 1131. 3 Ibid. p. 1132. 4 Ibid. p. 1 133. 5 Ibid. p. 1 134. 6 Ibid. p. 1 135. 270 ANALYSIS OF EXCLUSION BILL [book n. ' La.d. 1679- come by any violent death they would revenge it to the utmost upon the Papists.' Accordingly, the Exclusion Bill was read a first time on May 15th, and for the highest Constitutional reasons it de mands of us a careful analysis. The Preamble sets forth the particulars of the ' execrable conspiracy,' the ' traitorous seduction ' of James, Duke of York, to the communion of Rome by the emissaries of the Pope, his being ' induced to negotiate with Cardinals and Nuncios ' to promote Romish interests and to advance the greatness of France, all to the ' manifest hazard ' of- these kingdoms, if they should succeed in 'their wicked and villainous designs.' Then it proceeds to enact — (1) 'That the said Duke should be incapable of inheriting the Crowns ' . . (2) That they ' should devolve to the person next in Succession as if the Duke were dead.' ... (3) That all 'acts of Sovereignty and Royalty, which the Duke may happen to perform, be not only declared void, but to be High Treason, and punishable as such.' ... (4) That any one, ' endeavouring to bring the Duke back, or corresponding with him to make him inherit, shall be guilty of High Treason.' ... (5) That if the Duke himself ' shall return to these dominions, considering the mischiefs that must ensue, he should be looked upon as guilty of High Treason, and seized, imprisoned, or, if need be, subdued by force of arms.' 1 It was read a second time on May 21st, and by a vote of 207 against 128, it was remitted to a Committee of the whole House to be licked into final shape.2 But on May 26th, while they were keenly inquiring into allegations of Members receiving 'Pensions ' from the Court, the Black Rod thundered at the door, and the King, when they assembled in the Upper House, sharply rebuked and prorogued them till the 14th of August next But not without confirming and passing into 1 Hansard's /'. //. vol. iv. p. 1136. " Ibid. p. 1 136. chap, vi.l ORIGIN OF WHIG AND TORY 27 1 a.d. 1680 J ' a statute, in greatly amended form, our ever famous 'Habeas Corpus Act/1 one memorable event for which the third Parlia ment of Charles II. deserves to be covered with glory. Before the date of next meeting came, this Parliament was ' dissolved ' by proclamation. Another was summoned for the following October, 1679; but, as the Court Party were again defeated at the elections by the Country Party, the King once more deliberately attempted to govern without a Parliament. It was ' prorogued/ and then ' adjourned,' and again and again ' prorogued ' seven other times, till more than twelve months had elapsed. Meantime the Nation was kept positively seething with plot and counter-plot, — even utter blackguards, like the convict Dangerfield, with his Meal Tub Plot, finding a hear ing amidst the preternatural jealousies of the time. In September, the Duke had slipped over to Windsor, while the King lay ill in fever, and had prevailed to secure ' the dis gracing of Monmouth from his high offices.' In November, London avenged itself by celebrating the 'Pope-Burning' spectacle with unwonted magnificence and display. The King was overwhelmed with petitions to call together his Parliament again ; and the Court Party stirred up an opposite agitation, and procured petitions declaring con fidence' in the King, and 'abhorring' those who encroached on the Royal Prerogative. So that the nation fell into two camps, the ' Petitioners ' and the ' Abhorrers.' Finally, it was during this interval, according to Hume, that those ' foolish nicknames ' came into vogue, which at present seem a little ' nearer their end ' than when he wrote — Whig and Tory. The Court Party saw in their opponents the spirit of the Presbyterian ' Conventiclers ' of Scotland, and reproach fully called them Whigs. The Country Party saw in their opponents the spirit of the ' Popish Banditti ' of Ireland, and hatefully called them Tories.2 1 Hansard"s P. II. vol. iv. pp. 1148, 1149. 2 Ibid. pp. 1150-1154. 272 LORD RUSSELL'S MOTION [book ii. ' La.d. 1680 Parliament, however, had to be faced, and Charles did it with the best grace possible on 21st October 1680. In his opening speech he still humoured the House by declaring : — ' Nothing shall be wanting on my part to give you the fullest satisfaction your hearts can wish for the security of the Protestant Religion, which I am fully resolved to maintain against all the conspiracies of our enemies.' And he had still the firmness or the policy to announce that while ' concurring in any new Remedies which shall be proposed/ they must be such as shall consist with ' preserving the due and legal Succession of the Crown in its course of descent' J Despite all blandishments, the House returned to the old scent on 26th October, and the cry rang louder than ever that they were once more on the track of Royal game. The Dangerfield business was somewhat contemptuously de spatched, — the liar and forger's documents being found secreted in a ' meal tub/ — and the whole affair exploded, as an attempt on the part of Papists to ' invent a plot ' and roll the disgrace of it on their opponents. Burnet says that the ' King suffered much by the countenance he had given to it'2 The rest of the day was devoted to a long and very grave debate, launched by Lord Russell in these words : — ' I am of opinion that the life of our King, the safety of our Country, and the Protestant Religion, are in great danger from Popery ; and that either this Parliament must suppress the power and growth of Popery, or else that Popery will soon destroy not only Parliaments, but all that is near and dear to us. And therefore, I humbly move that we resolve now to take into our consideration, in the first place, — How to suppress Popery, and to prevent a Popish Succession ;3 without which all our endeavours about other matters will not signify anything ; therefore, this justly challengeth the precedency.' And yet it can scarcely be described as a 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1160. 2 Ibid. pp. 1161-2. 3 Ibid. p. 1162. chap yi. "I EXCLUSION BILL AGAIN 273 a.d. i68oJ debate, in the ordinary sense, for every speaker delivered himself more strongly than the last, but all leading up to this Resolution, again accepted nem. con., 'That it is the opinion of this House that they ought to proceed effectually to suppress Popery, and prevent a Popish Successor.' x Accordingly, on November 2nd, after the votes and re solutions of the previous Parliament had been reported at the table, and reaffirmed, Colonel Titus moved for a Committee to draw up a ' Bill to disable James, Duke of York, from inheriting the Imperial Crown of this Realm.'2 Lord Russell seconded the proposal, and all the best-known names in the House appear, on one side or other, in this debate.3 The policy of the Opposition may be gathered from Mr. Lawrence Hyde, a courtier, who said : ' By ridding ourselves of all the other Papists, and leaving him a General without an army, we may be safe — making such laws to bind the Duke as may be necessary.' 4 But compromise appeared impossible ; the Resolution was carried ; and the Bill for disabling the Duke was read a first time on 4th November. The Opposition was ably led by Sir Leoline Jenkins, now Secretary in Coventry's place. He argued that the Exclusion Bill was ' contrary to natural justice/ not having 'heard the party, nor examined any witnesses;' contrary to the 'principles of our Religion' to 'dispossess a man of his right because he differed in point of faith ;' contrary to the jus divinum, 'that the Kings of England have their right from God alone, and that no power on earth can deprive them of it;' and contrary to 'the Oath of Allegiance, taken in its own sense, and without Jesuitical evasions.'5 But his argument was at once grappled with, and its fallacy held up to gaze by Mr. John Hampden, in this rejoinder : ' I do not understand how it can be construed, because we go about to disinherit the Duke, that therefore it 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1171. 2 Ibid. p. 1175. 3 Ibid. pp. 1175-1190. 4 Ibid. pp. 1181 1190. 5 Ibid. pp. 1190, 1191. VOL. I. S 274 SIR WILLIAM TONES ["BOOK ii. '^ J La.d. 1680 must be " for his Religion." For my part, I do approve of the Bill ; but it is because the opinions and principles of the Papists tend to the alteration of the Government, as well as Religion, of this nation, and the introducing instead thereof not only of superstition and idolatry, but also of a Foreign and Arbitrary Power. If it was not for that . . . the Duke being a Papist would not be thought sufficient cause for this House to spend its time over this Bill.'1 On November 6th the Bill was read a second time, and, after emendations, was ordered to be engrossed on 8th November. But, on the 10th November, the King, getting alarmed once more, sent a personal message to be read to the House, 'beseeching them to expedite the matters relating to Popery and the Plot ; ' and ' assuring them that all remedies they could tender would be very acceptable' to him, — provided only that they ' preserved the Succession of the Crown in its legal course of descent'2 Next day, the Commons, having somewhat tartly discussed this message, sent back an ' Address in Reply ' to the King, — reflecting bitterly on those who ' counselled ' prorogations and dissolutions of Parliament, intimating their ' readiness ' for the trial of the Popish Lords, and vindicating their present 'procedure.'3 And .thereon they deliberately resumed the Exclusion Bill, carried it through a stormy and eager debate on its third reading, and appointed Lord Russell to go with it to the Lords and seek their 'concurrence.'4 The last debate, at this stage, was memorable for the fervent advocacy of Sir William Jones, afterwards Attorney- General, and, according to Temple, ' the greatest lawyer in England/ besides being a ' very rich man/ and also rather of a ' wary and timorous nature.' He denounced the ' Popish Faction' as 'spoiling the beautiful face of the best Govern ment in the world.' He declared that, for our just ' jealousies 1 Hansard's/1. H. vol. iv. p. 1 191. 2 Ibid. p. 1198. 3 Ibid. pp. 1203, 1204. 4 Ibid. pp. 1204-1215. chap, vi."] POPERY AND ARBITRARY GOVERNMENT 275 A.D. 1680J and fears/ 'no art of man can find out any remedy, so long as there is a Popish Successor, and the fears of a Popish King.'1 In the House of Lords, the debate raged with unwonted fire. The King was ' present all the while,' and nearly the whole House of Commons 'flocked to the bar.' Shaftesbury was the champion of the Bill ; and Halifax opposed it with such wit and eloquence that Reresby says he swayed the vote. The 'rage of altercation and the lust of superiority kept up the contest till eleven o'clock at night ' (an abnor mally late hour in those Arcadian days !).2 For this was recognised as ' one of the greatest days ever known in the House of Lords.' The Bill was rejected by 63 to 30. But the Country Party were elated, rather than otherwise, by the result. In less than a month the Commons are at it again. On December 15th we find them resolved into a Grand Com mittee, — ' How to secure the kingdom against Popery and Arbitrary Government'3 Rightly or wrongly our forefathers bracketed these two inseparably together — as twin sisters, as alike public enemies. Lord Cavendish ' moved for a Bill for the Association of all his Majesty's Protestant subjects.'4 Mr. Ralph Montagu, for a ' Bill for securing of frequent Parliaments/5 Mr. William Harbord moved to go on with the ' Bill of Banishment,' that we ' may not spend our time in vain.'6 Sir William Hickman thought 'they were well moved, as well for the Association Bill as for the Banishing Bill ; by the one, you will send your enemies out of the ¦country ; by the other, you will be in a good condition to keep them out, which may go a great way to secure us.'7 At length it was resolved : ' That it is the opinion of this Committee that one means to suppress Popery is, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1210. 2 Ibid. p. 1216. 3 Ibid. p. 1235. 4 Ibid. p. 1236. 6 Ibid. p. 1237. 0 Ibid. p. 1238. 7 Ibid. p. 1241. 276 REPLY TO KING'S SPEECH I"800*™ ' La.d. 1680 that the House be moved that a bill be brought in im mediately to banish all the considerable Papists out of the kingdom.'1 After further debate, a supplementary resolution was passed in these words : ' That it is the opinion of this Committee, that, as long as the Papists have any hopes of the Duke of York's succeeding the King, . . . the King's person, the Protestant Religion, and the Laws, Liberties, and Properties of all his Majesty's Protestant subjects, are in apparent danger of being destroyed/2 And, finally, after still further debate, this third resolution was recorded : ' That it is the opinion of this Committee that the House be moved that a bill be brought in for an Association of all his Majesty's Protestant subjects, for the safety of his Majesty's person, the defence of the Protestant Religion, and the preservation of his Majesty's Protestant subjects against all invasions and oppositions ; and for preventing the Duke of York, or any other Papist, from succeeding to the Crown.'3 Nay, the Commons tackled the whole issue even more directly and incisively by voting, on December 30th, an ' Address in Reply to the King's Speech ' of December 1 5th, wherein their positions and claims are unflinchingly main tained.4 John Hampden, Lord Russell, and Sir William Jones, guided the preceding debate. They set forth the dangers and mischiefs that have evidently accompanied even the 'expectation' of a Popish Successor. And they thus indicate ' the certain and unspeakable evils ' that must follow his Accession : ' Our Religion, now dangerously shaken, will then be totally overthrown. . . . The execution of old laws must cease. . . . The most sacred obligations of contracts and promises, if judged to be against the interests of the Romish Religion, will be violated, as is undeniable, from the sad experience this nation once had on a similar occasion. ... In the reign of such a Prince, the Pope will 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1243. - Ibid. p. 1247. 3 Ibid. p. 1250. 4 Ibid. pp. 1251-1255. chap, vi."] THE KING'S REFUSAL 277 A.D. l68l J be acknowledged supreme, and all causes, either as spiritual, or in order to spiritual things, will be brought under his jurisdiction. . . . The lives, liberties, and estates of all such Protestants, as value their souls and their Religion more than their secular concernments, will be adjudged forfeited. . . . To all which we might add (as appears in the discovery of the Plot), that Foreign Princes were invited to assist in securing the Crown to the Duke of York. . . . We further humbly beseech your Majesty to consider whether, in case the Imperial Crown of this Protestant Kingdom should descend to the Duke of York, the opposition which may possibly be made to his possessing it, may not only endanger the further descent in the Royal Line, but even Monarchy itself.'1 The many-coloured faiths and passions of the time are all seen playing before us in that Address. That sting in the above sentence about Alien Princes explains many things. Popery meant Foreign domination ; and that England was determined never to stand, though not only the Duke of York, but Monarchy itself, should perish in the struggle ! Having thus delivered their souls to the King, they proceeded, on December 21st, to discuss what is known as the 'Association Bill/ the aim of which was 'to unite in self- defence his Majesty's Protestant subjects.' Ralph says this was ' one of these Parliamentary fireworks that are occasion ally let off only to make a noise and expire.'2 The Bill was 'committed/ but in that Session we hear no more of it. For, on 7th January 1681, the ' King's Message' was delivered in reply to the Commons' Address, and set the Court Party and the Country Party once more by the ears. Charles flatly 'refused' the Bill of Exclusion on any terms, and was ' confirmed ' in his opinion by the House of Lords' rejection of it. And he intimated that ' there remains nothing more for him to say, but to recommend the consideration 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 1255-1258. 3 Ibid. pp. 1258-1260. 278 'STICK TO THE BILL' [bookii. ' La.d. 1681 of all other means for the preservation of the Protestant Religion.'1 Thereon the fire of debate burned afresh, as if oil had been poured upon it. Mr. Henry Booth 'moved them to vote— (1) That neither the King's Person nor the Protestant Religion can be secured any way without the Exclusion Bill. (2) That we can give no money . . . until we have that Bill. And (3) That seeing Supplies for all public money ought to come from this House . . let us pass a vote to prevent anti cipations on the revenue and other Supplies.'2 Lord Russell was 'of Booth's opinion, to stick to the Bill as our only security, and brand those that have hindered it from passing.'3 Hyde and Markham and Finch alone made a feeble opposition, and were 'laughed at'4 Hampden declared that all other ' expedients ' amounted to this : ' We are offered a bean-straw, instead of a sword, to fight with !' Sir William Jones affirmed : ' There can be no other Bill that can serve us in this case ; because all other Bills would still leave us in that miserable condition of opposing our lawful King, and all such opposition would be liable to be construed a rebellion.'5 Sir William Pulteney, protesting against the suggestion of some 'that a Popish King would find it against his own interest to attempt to change our Religion/ warmly replied : ' For my part, I am of a different judgment, and do believe that a Popish head on a Protestant body would be such a monster in nature, as would neither be fit to preserve or be preserved ; and that, therefore, it would as naturally follow, as night follows day, that either the head will change the body, or the body the head.'6 And Colonel Titus humorously argued : ' To accept of expedients to secure the Protestant Religion, after such a King hath mounted the throne, would be as strange as if there were a lion in the lobby, and we should vote, that we 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1278. 2 Ibid. p. 1279. 3 Ibid. p. 1280. 4 Ibid. pp. 1282-1284. 5 Ibid. p. 1284. 6 Ibid. p. 1286. chap. vi. "1 a FIVE-BARRELED RESOLUTION 279 a.d. 1681 J would rather secure ourselves by letting him in and chaining him, than by keeping him out;'1 which has thus been versified in Dodsley's Collection — ' I hear a lion in the lobby roar ; Say, Mr. Speaker, shall we shut the door And keep him out ? Or, shall we let him in, To try if we can turn him out again ?' At last there was passed, apparently nem. con., a sort of five-barreled resolution : That there was ' no security without an Exclusion Bill, reliance upon other means and remedies without it being not only insufficient but danger ous ;' that ' no Supply can be given by this House to his Majesty till said Bill be passed ;' that all ' the King's advisers ' against said Bill are 'promoters of Popery and enemies to the King and kingdom ;' that ' George, Earl of Halifax, is one of these pernicious counsellors and public enemies ;' and, finally, that ' an Address be presented to his Majesty to remove the Marquis of Worcester, the Earls of Clarendon and Feversham, and Lawrence Hyde and Edward Seymour, from his presence and counsels for ever.'2 Again, things were thus driven to a deadlock. Whispers of prorogation reached them ; and, while they were passing a hurried resolution, ' that whoever may advise his Majesty to prorogue the Parliament to no other purpose than to prevent the passing a Bill for the Exclusion of James, Duke of York, is a betrayer of the King, the Protestant Religion, and the kingdom of England, a promoter of the French interests, and a pensioner of France ;'3 — before the ink was dry on their records, the Black Rod summoned them to the Upper House, and the King ' prorogued ' the Parliament on 10th January 1681. Nay, eight days thereafter, he 'dissolved' it suddenly and unceremoniously, sacrificing at a stroke twenty- two important Bills, rather than face the progress of the Exclusion controversy.4 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1291. 2 Ibid. p. 1293. 3 Ibid. p. 1294. 4 Ibid- p. 1295. 280 'NO POPERY! NO SLAVERY!' ["bookii.La.d. 1681 In the proclamation dissolving that Parliament, another was called to meet at Oxford on March 21st This proposed removal from Westminster was everywhere interpreted as bearing a sinister meaning. The elections were overwhelm ingly against the Court Party. The City of London led the way by not only re-electing its four old Members, all strong Protestants, but gave them a ' paper of instructions ' from the citizens assembled in Common Hall ' never to consent to the granting of any Money Supply till they be effectually secured against Popery and Arbitrary Power.'1 This example was largely followed throughout the kingdom, and men felt everywhere the tingle of approaching battle. Sixteen of the Peers drew up and presented a personal appeal to the King to ' reconsider ' the resolution about Oxford, and to sit as usual at Westminster. At the former place they declared that ' neither Lords nor Commons could be in safety, but would be daily exposed to the swords of the Papists and their adherents, of whom too many had crept into his Majesty's Guards.' And they suggestively reminded the King that 'all those Parliaments that had met far away from the capital,' e.g., at Clarendon, Oxford, and Coventry, — had proved 'very fatal' to former Kings; and they indicate that the 'consequences of a Parliament now at Oxford may be as fatal to your Majesty and to the Nation !' 2 But the King only 'frowned' at the petitioners, and started, March 14th, with 'a great train' on his journey to Oxford. And he was followed by the Members for London, supported by a body of well-mounted horsemen, ' having ribbands in their hats with these words woven in them, " No Popery! No Slavery!"'3 Members from every quarter came 'similarly attended ;' and Archdeacon Echard declares — 'it was more like the rendezvous of a country Militia than a regular Parliament' This, the fifth and last Parliament of Charles 11. was opened on March 21st, and angrily dissolved, within eight 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1296. 2 Ibid. p. 1297. 3 Ibid. p. 1298. chap, vi 1 THE KING'S DEFIANT SPEECH 28 1 a.d. 1681 J days, on 28th March 1681.1 The King's Speech, on the first assembling of the Houses, was defiant rather than concilia tory : — ' The unwarrantable proceedings of the last House of Commons were the occasion of my parting with the last Parliament ; for I, who will never use Arbitrary Government myself, am resolved not to suffer it in others. ... I hope the example of the ill success of former heats will dispose you to a better temper, and not so much inveigh against what is past, as consider what is best to be done in the present con juncture. The further prosecution of the Plot, the Trial of the Lords in the Tower, the providing a more speedy con viction of Recusants, and, if it be practicable, the ridding ourselves quite of that Party that have any considerable authority or interest amongst them, are things, though of the highest importance, that hardly need to be recommended to you ; they are so obvious to every man's consideration, and so necessary for our security. . . . What I have formerly and so often declared touching the Succession, I cannot depart from. But to remove all reasonable fears that may arise from the possibility of a Popish Successor's coming to the Crown, if means can be found, that in such a case the administration of the Government may remain in Protestants' hands, I shall be ready to hearken to any such expedient by which the Religion might be preserved and the Monarchy not destroyed.'2 But no barrier could stop the overwhelming tide of National Opinion. On March 24th, Sir Nicholas Carew moved ' to bring in again the Exclusion Bill which was passed in the last Parliament.' Colonel Birch declared : ' We cannot preserve the Protestant Religion with a Popish Successor to the Crown, any more than water can be kept cold in a hot pot!' Mr. Hampden, however, and others, though sceptical as to any better ' expedients ' being forth coming, yet thought it more respectful to the King and his 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 1298-1339. 2 Ibid. pp. 1303-1305. 282 THE FITZHARRIS PLOT rB00KioLa.d. 1681 Ministers, not directly to reintroduce the bill ; but rather to reopen the general question two days later on a new motion : 'To consider means for the security of the Protestant Religion and for the safety of the King's Person.'1 The day of interval witnessed a very lively scene, a memorable revelation of the spirit of the times.2 On the 25th March, Sir William Waller gave an account of the dis covery of Fitzharris's Plot, and Sir George Treby read his examination. Burnet styles him ' an Irish Papist, who framed a malicious and treasonable libel against the King and his whole family.' The libel is entitled, ' The True Englishman speaking plain English.'3 Fitzharris pretended to reveal a ' Plot to kill the King, in which the Duke of York and many others were implicated.' The King's 'Secretaries and some Privy Councillors/ having already examined the informer, the action of the Commons in the matter was resented by the Court as indicating ' distrust of the Ministers/ and Fitzharris was ' removed to the Tower '—the Court Party's favourite prison. This being announced, the House flamed into its highest mood. A resolution was carried ' that Edward Fitzharris be impeached of High Treason in name of all the Commons of England.'4 And further, Mr. Secretary Jenkins was ordered to ' go up to-morrow and impeach him at the Bar of the House of Lords.' Jenkins regarded this as 'a reflection upon his master, the King, who had presumably taken upon himself the trial of Fitzharris through the ordinary Courts (a view afterwards taken by the Lords5 in face of a formidable protest), and flatly declared that he 'would not go!' Thereon arose a great cry: 'To the Bar! To the Bar!'6 Sir Thomas Lee declared 'that Parliaments need sit no longer if this be suffered.' Others followed in the same 1 Hansard's/". H. vol. iv. pp. 1308-1311. 2 Ibid. pp. 1313-1317. 3 Ibid. Appendix, No. xiii. 4 Ibid. p. 13 14. '- Ibid. pp. 1332-1337. « n,id p. I3i5_ chap, yi.l EXCLUSION BILL REVIVED 283 A.D. 1681J strain, and stormy cries rang round, — ' To the Bar !' Jenkins made ineffectual attempts to allay the fury of the House to explain that he had ' not charged them ' with reflecting upon his Majesty, but that ' he himself so apprehended it.' Sir William Jones pointedly declared : ' Let a man be of what quality he will, if he be too big to carry your message, he is too big to be your Member, and not fit to be chosen for one. Too big, forsooth, to be the messenger from the House of Commons!' Jenkins again stumbled, in explaining that he regarded ' the motion as carried on in ridicule.' Sir Henry Capel jumped upon this as almost worse than the original offence, — 'Ridicule was not a word proper to their grave deliberations, especially where a man's life was concerned!' Jenkins at length, driven to the wall, ' apologized, and with drew the words that had given offence, and was ready to obey the orders of the House.'1 And so, with a few growls from indignant Members that he ought to ' go upon his knees at the Bar,' etc., etc., the matter was hushed up, and the Secretary carried his ' message.' A scene like this is worth more than the comments and reflections of all the historians in helping us to under stand the spirit of the House, and to read intelligently the motives and principles that underlay the greater events soon to be hurried to an issue. The 26th of March had now arrived, and the one great debate of this Parliament was again resumed — the Exclusion Bill.2 Sir Robert Clayton, in name of the City of London, moved ' that a bill be brought in to disable James, Duke of York, from inheriting the Imperial Crown of this Realm.'3 He complained that the opposers of the bill had as yet suggested none of the so-called 'other expedients' for securing the King's Person and the Protestant Religion ' in case of a Popish Successor/ Lord Russell was of the same opinion : ' I should be glad if anything else but the bill ' Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1317. 2 Ibid. pp. 1317-1332. J Ibid. p. 1317. 284 THE REGENCY PROPOSAL [ book ii. ^ La.d. 1681 would secure us from Popery ; but I know of nothing else that will.'1 After much pressure from all quarters for ' the mention of other expedients/ Sir John Ernly, 'offering his little mite/ proposed ' to place the power of Government in a Regency, and let the Duke retain the title of King.' Sir William Pulteney rejoined : ' By this you make the King but a shadow, and divide the person from the power. Our law will not endure it, unless the King be a minor or a lunatic!'2 Sir Thomas Littleton learnedly defended the Regency proposal ; but Sir William Jones described this expedient as ' a kind of Jesuit's powder, — else why all this ado for the empty name of King? ... If the Duke gets the title of King, then all other incapacities fail.'3 Many and weighty speeches followed, Mr. Boscawen winding up the debate in this graphic style: ' Methinks the expedient of the Regency seems to me as if a man that sat by the fire and burnt his shins, instead of removing himself farther off, should send for a mason to remove the chimney back farther from him. ... If I am to leap over a river, I had better have no staff than a broken one ; and this expedient is no security.' The vote passed in this form : — ' The House, having taken into solemn debate and consideration the means for security of the Protestant Religion and for safety of the King's Person, doth resolve — That a bill be brought in to exclude James, Duke of York, from inheriting the Imperial Crowns of England and Ireland, and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging, and that a Committee be appointed to draw up the said bill.'4 Within two days we find it laid on the table for its first reading, — the 'drawing up' being rather an easy matter, as it had already been fully discussed and passed during two preceding Parliaments. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1318. 2 Ibid. p. 1321. 8 Ibid. p. 1325. 4 ibid_ p_ ,3;J2 chap. vi. 1 CAROLUS SECUNDUS MENDAX 285 A.D. l68l J Accordingly, on March 28th, the Commons are busy 'reading the Exclusion Bill a first time/ in face of the repeated arguments of the almost solitary Sir Leoline Jenkins, ordering it to be ' read a second time to-morrow in a full House/ and settling down to listen to the learned comments of Sir William Jones on 'their findings regarding the Lords' rejection of their impeachment of Fitzharris/ — when, suddenly, Black Rod knocks sharply on the door, and Sir William's sentence is broken off in the middle.1 In the Upper House his Majesty curtly addressed them thus : ' That all the world may see to what a point we are come, — that we are not like to have a good end, when the divisions at the beginning are such, — therefore, my Lord Chancellor, do as I have commanded you.' Whereon, the Chancellor said : ' His Majesty has commanded me to say, That it is his royal pleasure and will that this Parliament be dissolved, and this Parliament is dissolved.' Burnet says the King did it 'very suddenly, and not very decently ;' and that he slunk away with such haste to Windsor that ' he looked as if afraid of the crowds !'2 Charles, developing his peculiar gifts into a kind of fine art of falsity, issued a Royal Declaration in April, for ' satisfying his people ; ' in which he reckoned up ' all the hard things done against him by the last three Parliaments/ and closed with the monstrous assurance, — ' That nothing should ever alter his affection to the Protestant Religion, as established by law, nor his love to Parliaments, for he should still have frequent Parliaments.'3 No one who has studied this History to any purpose will be astonished to learn that, despite the ' Triennial Act,' and everything else, the remaining years of his reign, four in all, were a persistent and almost successful attempt to rule, not only without Parliaments, but in defiance of them ; and a still more eager and more successful endeavour to 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 1337-38. 2 Ibid. p. 1339. 3 Ibid. p. 1340. 286 TRIUMPH OF CHARLES [bookii. La.d. 1683 stamp out all opposition to a Popish Successor, and, as matter of fact, to place a bigoted Papist who was also an arbitrary Tyrant upon the throne. Strange to say, the King's fresh and false 'declaration' was, nevertheless, received 'with a burst of loyalty.' The Churchmen read it from every pulpit ; and, most incredible of all, the Universities declared that ' no religion, no law, no fault, 110 forfeiture',1 could bar the sacred right of Hereditary Succession. Beyond this depth, human flunkeyism could scarcely be imagined to sink — ' Tread upon our necks ! We were made to be trampled on, and we like it' The tide appeared to have completely turned. James was brought back to the Court ' in triumph.' Charles, now fortified by a ' Golden Subsidy ' from France, and by the rapid increase of revenue from ' Customs ' at home, could afford to snap his fingers over the absence of Parliamentary ' Supplies.' Shaftesbury was arrested, on the charge of ' suborning false witnesses to the Plot ; ' but the Middlesex Grand Jury cleared him, and, on his discharge from the Tower, the city of London ' blazed ' with bonfires and ' rang ' with bells. But, in 1682, creatures of the Court were forced in as Sheriffs of the city, and ' the packed Juries they nominated placed every exclusionist at the mercy of the Crown.' Shaftesbury, clearly perceiving the issues, desperately urged his friends 'to arms' as their only hope. But their delay drove him to seek safety in flight ; and, two months after arrival in Holland, his great and restless soul ' found quiet in death.'2 That was in January 1683, and, before the close of that year, the whole Constitutional Opposition, that had so long held ' Popery and Arbitrary Power ' in check, lay crushed and bleeding to death at the feet of the King ! A few desperate men were found to have engaged in the Rye House Plot, viz., 'to murder Charles and his brother, as they passed 1 Green's S. H. ch. ix. sect. v. p. 645. 2 md. p. g46. chap. yi. 1 THE DUKE'S RETURN 287 A.D. 1684 J ' that place, on the road from London to Newmarket' This conspiracy, with which Russell and Sidney and Essex had nothing whatever to do, was blended, ' by the cruel ingenuity of the Crown lawyers,' with another and a comparatively innocent ' proposal,' to band together Protestants and patriots in self-defence, in which they were as ' certainly engaged.' Corrupt judges and packed juries 'did the bidding' of the Court Party, and the influence of the Duke was every where paramount. In July, Lord Russell was beheaded in Lincoln Inn Fields, the crowd ' dipping their handkerchiefs in his blood/ as a martyr for Protestant freedom ; Algernon Sidney immediately followed to a similar death ; and the Earl of Essex, to escape their doom, ' cut his own throat in his room at the Tower.'1 In each of these cases, despite all coloured pretences to the contrary, their ' death-warrant was found in their advocacy of the Exclusion Bill.' Hamp den was 'ruinously fined' in £40,000, at Lord Howard's instigation ; and Oates in £100,000, at the Duke's suit for Scandalum Magnatum.2 On the other hand, the Earl of Danby and the Popish Lords were 'bailed out' and set free. In vain Halifax pleaded with Charles 'to call a Parliament, to bring back Monmouth, or to resist the aggressions of France.' A stronger power than his controlled the King. Despite remonstrances, the Test Act was ' violated ' by the readmission of the Duke to a seat in the Council, and by his restoration to the office of Lord High Admiral. And, finally, English freedom was attacked at its very citadel — the 'Charters of free Munici palities.'3 The cities and boroughs of England, where only the opposition to the Court Party now survived, were called upon by writs of quo warranto to show cause ' why their Charters should not be declared forfeited, on the ground of abuse of 1 Green's S. H. ch. ix. sect. vi. p. 646. 2 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1340, 1341. 8 Green's S. H. p. 648. 288 DEATHBED OF CHARLES Tbookii.La.d. 1685 privileges.' A few verdicts ' for the Crown ' brought about a general surrender. In the grant of fresh Charters care was taken to exclude from the Corporations 'all but ultra- loyalists,' and thus the borough representation passed into the hands of the Court1 Side by side with this onslaught on freedom, Charles had been steadily building up a ' Standing Army.' His Guards numbered 9000 well-equipped and disciplined soldiers ; and six regiments, now serving in the Netherlands, would soon be added to the force. To all human appearance, the triumph of Arbitrary Power was complete ; and its twin sister, Popery, was on the eve of rising on the wings of despotism, from mere Toleration not only to Equality but even to Supremacy, by ascending the throne itself. But, just in that hour of approaching victory, a mightier hand than any of the plotters intervened. On 6th February 1685, Charles lay a-dying. He jokes about 'the unconscion able time' he takes to do it! He 'blesses' his Bishops kneeling around his bed ; and then, with that phenomenal power of hypocrisy, in which he was a master, he hastens them out, in order to admit Huddleston, the Popish Priest, 'who receives his dying confession, reconciles him to the Church of Rome, and administers to the penitent the last Sacrament' But no mummery can root out nature at a stroke ! With the wafer still between his lips, Charles finds comfort in the tears of his courtesan, the Duchess of Ports mouth, who ' hung weeping over him ; ' and whispers, to his brother the Duke, regarding another of the same, Nell Gwynn, as his eyes were finally closing in the stupor of death, — 'Don't let poor Nelly starve ! '2 Any man who understands the issues that are at stake will readily perceive the necessity for our prolonged and careful study of the Reign of Charles H. Every question, 1 Green's S. H. ch. ix. sect. vi. p. 648. 2 Ibid. p. 649. chap, vi.-] ALL THE ISSUES RAISED 289 a.d. 1685J J that can, probably, arise in any future conflict of Constitu tional Freedom against Popery and Arbitrary Power, arose then and was grappled with by our forefathers in the High Parliament of the Nation. And if history has any lessons for us, no period through which we have yet travelled brings more fully into light the whole subject of Papal Claims and of concessions to Popery. At least, in no previous reign were these principles, on which the conflict must be finally settled, more sharply defined or more luminously discussed. VOL. I. CHAPTER VII THREE KINGDOMS FOR A MASS a.d. 1685— 1688 AMAZING as it may seem to any reader of the previous pages, the accession of the Duke of York, as James II., was apparently hailed with enthusiasm. The Privy Council, and others near the seat of Government, at once signed an 'instrument' proclaiming him King. 'With one full voice and consent of tongue and heart,' they publish and proclaim ' that the high and mighty Prince James ... is now become their lawful, lineal, and rightful liege lord, etc.'1 To him they ' acknowledge all faith and constant obedience, with all hearty and humble affection.' For his part, James seemed to enter fully and earnestly into the new spirit of the time ; and had there been one grain of honour in the man or in his words, the whole nation would, to all seeming, have witnessed the hitherto unwonted spectacle of a Popish King ruling in constitutional and happy accord over a Protestant People. On the very day of his accession, and immediately after the making of the aforesaid proclamation, the King addressed his Privy Council, and bravely grappled with the new situation in this hopeful style : — ' I have been reported to be a man for arbitrary power ; ... but I shall make it my endeavour to preserve this Government both in Church and State, as it is now by law established. I know that the principles of the Church of England are for Monarchy, . . . therefore I shall 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 1 341, 1342. chap, vii."] BURST OF NATIONAL LOYALTY 29 1 a.d. 1685 J always take care to defend and support it. I know too that the laws of England are sufficient to make the King as great a Monarch as I can wish ; and as I shall never depart from the just right and prerogative of the Crown, so I shall never invade any man's property. I have often heretofore ventured my life in defence of the nation ; and I shall still go as far as any man in preserving it in all its just rights and liberties.'1 Men heard these words with joy, not unmixed with sur prise ; and, if the word of a King had in it any grain of truth, they began to suspect themselves as having been under an unworthy nightmare during all their years of frenzy at ' the prospect of a Papist on the throne.' And so the Privy Councillors printed the King's words, and shed them broad cast as leaves of healing for the three nations ! But James himself also issued a 'Proclamation to the People/ that by two witnesses every promise might be con firmed, declaring : — ' That all persons lawfully possessed of any office, Civil or Military/ should be continued in the same. Of course there was added the usual formality, 'until the King's pleasure shall be further known,' — but no one sus pected any snake lying there concealed in the grass ! All officers, ' of whatsoever degree or condition,' were enjoined ' not to fail ' in the due execution of their trusts ; and all the King's subjects were commanded, on pain of the King's displeasure, ' to aid and assist all of them in their respective offices and places.'2 Words, bonds, solemn assurances could go no further. The Nation rose with marvellous loyalty to the bait thrown at them by James. They believed, in spite of all 'fears and jealousies/ that the word of a Popish King, and ' of a King who had never been worse than his word/ could be trusted.3 At least, despite all hazards, they resolved, not only with unanimity, but with generous loyalty, to give a Popish 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1342. 3 Ibid. p. 1342. 8 Green's S. Hi ch. ix. sect. vi. p. 649. 292 FIRST AND ONLY PARLIAMENT OF JAMES [BOOK it. I-A.D. 1685 Prince, for once in their history, every possible chance to show whether or not he could reign as a Constitutional King. It was, of course, a little staggering to learn that James had no sooner buried his brother, than he took public occasion to inform the world that Charles ' had died a Roman Catholic n — despite all his solemn hypocrisies in speech after speech before his Parliaments to the very last ! The people, instinctively feeling that a Papist at heart had already been on the throne, and had egregiously lied to them and swindled them all those years, yet generously protested that James the new King was a different type of man ; and, though a fanatical Papist, could be trusted to stick to his word, and that his personal honour was above suspicion.2 He 'osten tatiously and publicly appeared at Mass ; ' and the sense of fair play suggested to them that a King, who was so open and sincere, would not prove also to be a liar and a cheat. Accordingly, when the new Parliament was elected, to meet on 19th May 1685, the fresh tide of loyalty on the one hand and the new Borough Charters on the other gave the Court Party an easy and overwhelming victory. The proceedings of this, the first and only Parliament that James ever faced, — prorogued on the 20th November of the same year, and finally, after repeated prorogations, dissolved by proclamation on 2d July 1687 3 — need not detain us very long ; yet they are intensely interesting, and will be found vital to the appreciation of events that follow. No time was lost in putting the temper of the Parliament to a pretty severe test. While the Commons were busy electing their Speaker and getting each Member duly sworn, ' twenty Peers were introduced and took their seats in one day/ * — all understood to be friendly to the new Court Party; and the Upper House at once entered upon consideration of a ' Petition from the Popish Lords ' who had lain so long under 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1343. 2 Green's ^. H. ch. ix. s. vi. p. 649. J Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 1343-88. < Ibid. p. 1349. chap, vii.-] THE KING'S MENACING SPEECH 293 a.d. 1685 J *° charges in the Tower. On their appearing at the Bar, after debate, the order for their impeachment was ' reversed and annulled.' Four Lords only had the courage to enter their 'dissent' against thus overriding Parliamentary custom, as an 'extra-judicial alteration' of a judicial rule; as 'laying aside an order, made and renewed after long debate, without permitting the same to be read, though called for, and against weighty reasons, and contrary to practice ; ' and as breaking down ' the steadiness and certitude of rules of procedure in this Highest Court of Justice.' 1 But despite these Earls, — Radnor, Anglesea, Clare, and Stamford, — the matter was concluded, two days after, by Mr. Attorney-General intimating to the House 'that his Majesty had sent a warrant to him to enter a Nolle Prosequi upon the indictments against the Popish Lords ; ' and they and their bail were accordingly discharged.2 The King's Speech at the formal opening of this Parlia ment on 22d May was in many respects one of the most memorable ever delivered by any British Sovereign. It bears unmistakable traces of the hand and spirit of James himself, and well deserves a little study. He opens by a reference to his ' peaceable possession of the throne of his ancestors ; ' and talks about making his * reign both easy and happy ' to them. He repeats his Privy Council phrases about ' defending and supporting' the Church of England, whose members have 'showed themselves so eminently loyal in the worst of times ; ' and about preserving at once ' the just Rights and Prerogatives of the Crown ' and the ' just Rights and Liberties of the Nation.' He emphasises his assurance, thus a second time deliberately made, con cerning their 'religion and property/ and calls upon them ' firmly to rely upon a promise so solemnly given.' Having referred to the subject of Revenues, that they must be settled on him and continued to him ' for life/ that 1 IJansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 1349, 1350. 2 Ibid. p. 1350. 294 REVENUE VOTED FOR LIFE [book ii. y^ la.d. 1685 the Government might not be ' precarious/ — James answers the objection that this ' might obviate frequent Parliaments,' by telling them roundly and ' once for all ' that that would be ' a very improper method to take ' with him ; and he adds, not without undercurrent menace, 'the best way to engage me to meet you often is always to use me well ! ' He expects that they will ' comply/ and ' do it speedily/ that the session may be ' short/ and that they may ' meet again to all our satisfactions.' Having thus delivered his soul, he closes with a few revengeful sentences regarding ' the rising ' of Argyle in the North ; sneers at the rebels for charging him with ' usurpation and tyranny ; ' pledges himself to mete out to them ' the reward they deserve ; ' and therefore he does not doubt that Parliament will ' zealously support ' him ; and, adds the King, with scant decency of phrase, — ' Give me my Revenue, as I have desired it, without delay.'1 Immediately, and nem. con., both Houses returned most humble and hearty 'thanks' to his Majesty 'for his most gracious Speech ! ' 2 Perhaps no cow, stuck up against the wall of the byre, and threatened to give her milk freely or to suffer all penalties, ever yielded herself half so meekly as did this obeisant Parliament. For on the same day, and again nem. con., though Mr. Seymour (afterwards Sir Edward) made a speech protesting against the ' manner ' of doing it, the Commons resolved : — ' That the Revenue settled on his late Majesty be settled on his present Majesty during his life/ — and ordered Mr. Solicitor to 'bring in a bill for that purpose.' This was a long step towards enabling James, along with the 'subsidy' which he solicited, and was willing to receive from France, to defy his Parliament, to keep a Standing Army in his own pay, and to rule in absolute despotism. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 1351-1354. 2 Ibid. p. 1354. 3 Ibid. pp. 1354-1356. chap. vn. "I RESOLUTIONS ON RELIGION 295 A.D. 1685 J *3 But we must trace the game step by step, and show its development. A King, with a settled 'income of two millions sterling per annum/ and what General Churchill called a ' heart of marble/ x had great opportunities ; and he determined to utilise them for the one grand aim of his life. Read on, and learn from himself what that supremely was. On this same busy 22d of May, the Earl of Argyle's ' Declaration of War/ against 'the usurpation and tyranny of James, Duke of York, entering into and exercising the Government contrary to law/ was read to the Commons ; who at once resolved, and again nem. con., 'to stand by his Majesty with their lives and fortunes.' The King haughtily replied to them that 'he expected no less from a House of Commons so composed (God be thanked !) ; ' and that these assurances of theirs were ' the natural effects of Monarchical and Church of England men.' 2 Their utter slavery of spirit was, however, most con spicuously manifested, when, on 27th May, they came to discuss the ' Report on Religion/ given in by Sir Thomas Meres from the Grand Committee. The two resolutions, submitted and recommended by the report, were to this effect : — First, ' to assist and stand by his Majesty, according to duty and allegiance, for the defence and- support of the Reformed Religion of the Church of England, as now by law established;'3 and secondly, to address his Majesty to 'publish a Royal Proclamation, for putting the laws in execution against all Dissenters whatsoever.' We need not wonder that Barillon, the French Ambassador, informs his master that these proposals ' greatly offended the King, and especially the Queen ; ' or that the Court Party insisted upon having them withdrawn. If Churchmen wanted to have a fling at their Protestant opponents, the King was keen enough to see that these laws must smite Papists too ! 1 Green's S. H. ch. ix. sect. vi. pp. 649-651. 2 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 1355-1357. 6 Ibi-'. p. 1357. 296 ARGYLE AND MONMOUTH [book ii. ? La.d. 1685 But the Commons made full amends for any lapse in their Grand Committee. They crouched lower yet at the feet of James, and passed nem. con. this vote of confidence : — ' That this House doth acquiesce, entirely rely, and rest wholly satisfied in his Majesty's gracious word and repeated declaration to support and defend the Religion of the Church of England, as it is now by law estab lished ; which is dearer to us than our lives.' x Gently, ye gentlemen of the Nether House ; one, on the throne of England, marks your words, and measures accordingly your spirit. Ye will not lack opportunity of soon show ing whether anything on earth is 'dearer to you' than life! During the month of June, Parliament was busy with news about the risings of Monmouth in the West and Argyle in the North. James utilised both events for screwing a large additional 'supply' out of the Commons to meet his extraordinary expense ; ' 2 and he secured, first, an ' imposi tion on all wines and vinegars,' and, secondly, a ' supply not exceeding £400,000.' On June 22d the House was informed that Argyle was ' safe in custody.' Very soon thereafter he was pitilessly sent to the block at Edinburgh.3 The attainder against Monmouth had already passed both Houses 'in a single day;' his 'declaration' was ordered to be burned 'by the common hangman;'4 on July 6th, his hopes were shattered by the unsuccessful assault on the King's forces at Sedgemoor; and on July 15th, he himself perished as a traitor on the Tower Hill at London.6 But, before the completion of these events, the Parliament, having passed the attainder of Monmouth, — though it ' refused to reverse the attainder of Stafford/ despite all the influence of the Court Party, and thereby stultify all its own proceedings and findings regarding the Popish Plot, — had, according to his 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1358. 2 Ibid. pp. 1360, 1366. 3 Ibid. p. 1366. 4 Ibid. 1 365. 5 Ibid. p. 1 367. chap. vn.-| The BLOODY CIRCUIT 297 a.d. 1685 J Majesty's pleasure, 'adjourned themselves' on July 2d, first till 4th August, and a second time till 9th November of the same year. This interval, with its Bloody Assize and the sinister light thereby shed on James's character, was probably the salvation of British freedom from the doom that settled down upon France. The recoil was produced by the 'legal butcheries' of Judge Jeffreys1 and the 'military murders' of Colonel Kirke. Three hundred and fifty who had followed Monmouth were hanged in this ' Bloody Circuit ' through Dorset and Somerset. More than eight hundred were ' sold into slavery ; ' and a still larger number were ' whipped and imprisoned.' The sale of ' pardons ' enriched the Queen, the courtiers, and even the judge himself. Cruelties unheard of in England before were wreaked even on women. The whole country was 'strewed with. heads and limbs/ Every village looked with horror on some ' wretched carcass.' And the name of Judge Jeffreys comes down to us as the symbol of all that is most inhuman and devilish in our history. But pity for the victims darkened into horror and rage throughout the nation when it became manifest that the King himself ' inspired and sanctioned ' these deeds.2 And a not unfounded alarm began to show itself When James 'at one swoop' raised his Standing Army from ten to twenty thousand, for use, not abroad, but in England itself. Protestants took a darker view of James's plans when his ' subserviency to the King of France ' came to be surmised, and when news arrived, by the flight of refugees, of Lewis's ' Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.' By this famous Edict Henry IV., though himself abandoning Protestantism, secured 'toleration for Protestants and the free exercise of their worship.' In 1685 Lewis revoked the edict, and the 1 Alias Jefferies. 2 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1366 ; Green's S. H. ch. ix. sect. vi. p. 650 ; Hume, ch. lxx. p. 570; and Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1367. 298 BARILLON ON THE KING'S PLANS Fb°°k »• 7 La.d. 1685 Protestants of England heard blood-curdling tales of the ravages wreaked upon their French brethren by the Papists, let loose to lust and revenge. ' Dragoons were quartered on Protestant families ; women were flung from their sick-beds into the streets ; children were torn from their mothers' arms, to be brought up in Catholicism ; ministers were sent to the galleys.' x Englishmen were ' quivering with horror at the news ; while their own King, with scornful contempt of all laws, was restlessly maturing his plans, with the help of the gold of Lewis, and rapidly preparing his tools for a similar slaughter. All this and far worse is revealed by the ' De spatches of Barillon to the French King/ in which we have the words of James chronicled, and his very thoughts faith fully laid bare. The King considers it absolutely ' necessary to his anthority,' to secure from the Parliament, at its approaching meeting, ' the repeal of the Test Act and of the Habeas Corpus Act ; ' which are ' considered, by all English men, as the bulwarks of the Protestant Religion and of the Liberties of the Nation.' Then will follow ' the restitution of all the Catholic Peers/ and the ' confirmation of all Catholic officers in the Army and in the Royal Household.' But, alas, 'the English see with much "concern . . . that the existing laws against the Catholic Religion cannot be put in force under a King who publicly professes that Religion ! ' The King of England 'thinks he will succeed . . . and seems very determined.' There is ' great distrust in the Protestant Party.' The most ' skilful Roman Catholics,' who have ' the greatest share ' in the King's confidence, think ' the present juncture the most favourable that can be hoped for.' The ' Jesuits are of the same opinion.' The King ' often speaks to me about what he wishes to do, and seems resolved to profit by the present juncture. ... I strengthen the resolution he seems to have taken. . . . There has not 1 Green's S. H. ch. ix. sect. vi. p. 651. chap, vii.l STANDING ARMY AND TEST ACTS 299 a.d. 1685 J *J been for many years a more important session of Parlia ment' x When you have looked into this open window, and read all you can through it, let us proceed to the meeting of Parliament again, 9th November 1685, and listen to the King's Speech. He congratulates them on meeting in ' so great peace and quietness/ and thanks God 'by whose blessing the Rebellion was suppressed.' But he hopes that everybody is now convinced, in the light of those events, that the Militia ' hitherto depended on ' is no longer sufficient for such occasions ; and that ' nothing but a good force of well-disciplined troops in constant pay can defend us ; ' and he intimates that his concern for his Subjects, and for his Government, has led him lately 'to increase the number' of such to greater proportions. Having thus brought them face to face with the then much-dreaded and revolutionary fact of a ' Standing Army/ — the deadly tool of every existing despotism in the world at that day, — and asked a 'supply' answerable to this great additional charge, he launches out fearlessly on the subject of ' Officers and the Tests.' He admits that there are some officers in the Army 'not qualified' according to law for these employments ; but he explains that they are ' well known ' to himself, that they had ' formerly served ' with him on several occasions, that they had always 'approved the loyalty of their principles by their practice/ and "that he thought them 'now fit to be employed' under him. And finally he threw down the gauntlet in the face of Parliament with these words : — ' I will deal plainly with you, that after having had the benefit of their service in such a time of need and danger, I will neither expose them to disgrace, nor myself to the want of them, if there should be another Rebellion to make them necessary to me.' 2 The only redeeming feature in all this was its perfect 1 Hansard's/". H. vol. iv. pp. 1367-1370. 2 Ibid. pp. 1367-1371. 300 BID FOR ABSOLUTE MONARCHY [book n. J La.d. 1685 clearness. The Standing Army, a ready implement in the pay of the tyrant, was thrust on the nation at the will of the Sovereign alone, — though all Parliaments had fiercely de nounced such a thing, on such conditions at least, as the assassination of Liberty. And the Test Acts, solemnly and repeatedly enacted by Parliament after Parliament, were simply obliterated, apart from all process of law or even consent of Legislature, by the direct fiat of the King. No issue could conceivably be more clearly raised. And it is impossible even to imagine that James and his Counsellors were not perfectly aware that he was making a grand bid for Absolute Monarchy, — that they believed, as he assured Barillon, that arbitrary power with Popery at its side was now within his grasp, — and that Parliament was prepared to make the great renunciation. At first, it seemed as if James and the Popish Party had rightly gauged the political weather. Some, indeed, of the Lords ' warmly opposed ' the vote of ' thanks to the King for his Speech.' But Halifax turned the tide by his ' ironical ' suggestion that they had 'very particular reason to give thanks to his Majesty, since he had so plainly discovered what he meant to be at ! ' The Court Party ' took the jest in earnest,' and carried their motion of thanks. To which the King replied smoothly that he was ' very well satisfied that they were pleased ; ' and assured them that he would ' never offer anything to their House but what he was convinced was for the good and true interest of the kingdom.' The Earl of Middleton, leader of the Court Party in the Commons, tried to rush through a similar vote in the Lower House ; but they had wit enough left to resolve ' to take his Majesty's Speech into consideration on Thursday 12th instant, in a Committee of the whole House.' This little breathing space saw another turning of the tide, and probably saved the Nation.1 When the House assembled, on the 12th November, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1371. chap, vii."] DEBATE ON A STANDING ARMY 301 a.d. 1685 J ° Barillon tells his French master in his ' despatches/ that ' the discussion was very warm, and attended with much debate. ... . The Court Party, however, carried, the grant of a Supply, without specifying for what purpose, and it passed by a small majority ; but the House at the same time came to a resolution, that the true force of the kingdom consists in the Militia, ... a plain declaration that the Commons will not allow of a regular Standing Army. . . . Many of the Members spake with great vehemence against the Army and the (Roman) Catholic officers ; and asserted that the King's Speech was a contradiction of what he had said in the preceding session ; since in this he openly declared himself against the established laws, which are the safeguard of the Protestant Religion. . . . All their speeches were directed against a Standing Army, and allowing of Catholic officers.'1 This life-like photograph, taken by a keen observer on the spot, makes it unnecessary for us to delay over this great Constitutional debate.' Sir Thomas Clarges, in answer to the Court Party, reminded them of the Bill of Exclusion, not so long ago discussed there ; and that a great argument then was, ' that if we had a Popish Successor, we should have a Popish Army.' He called them to remember the words of the late Lord Chancellor, when the Test Act was passed by the late King : — ' By this Act you are provided against Popery, that no Papist can possibly creep into any (Public) Employment' He declared himself greatly afflicted at the threatened 'breach of our Liberties/ and moved 'that a Standing Army would be destructive to the country/ 2 The drift of the debate, and of all the speeches, is easily seen from those two resolutions passed separately, and each nem. con.: — (1) 'That a Supply be given to his Majesty;' and (2) ' that the House be moved to give leave to bring in a bill to render the Militia more useful.' 3 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 1375, 1376. ! Ibid. pp. 1372, 1373. 3 Ibid. p. 1375. 302 POPISH OFFICERS IN THE ARMY [book ii. J La.d. 1685 The rift betwixt the Court Party and the Commons, though thus sufficiently emphasised by the indirect vote against the Standing Army and a direct vote in favour of the Militia, yawned wider and wider till it became an impassable gulf during the next two days, on which the debate still raged over the King's Speech. Barillon says that, on November 13th, 'the proceedings were still more violent;' and on the question, 'whether they should discuss the grant of the Supply/ or take into consideration ' the next paragraph ' of his Majesty's Speech, 'the Opposition carried the latter only by a majority of three/ 'It seemed,' he continues, 'the almost unanimous sentiment of the House that no money should be granted for the Supply of a Standing Army, and that no Catholic officers should be suffered to remain in it'1 When the House resumed discussion on the 14th, there was ' much more temper and moderation than was looked for.' Yet there was ' great firmness ; and the House seemed fully resolved not to allow the King to employ Catholic officers, since it is directly contrary to the laws.' 2 Finally, the ' resolutions ' carried this day were embodied in a ' Humble Address to his Majesty/ which was read in the House and agreed to on the 16th November, — wherein the loyal and faithful Commons delivered themselves in this strain: Returning 'thanks for suppression of the late Re bellion/ which, among other evils, ' threatened the utter extirpation of their Religion ' as by law established (that is hard upon Argyle and Monmouth, who raised their standards for Protestantism and against a Popish Prince !), they slyly remind his Majesty that ' he hath been pleased to give them repeated assurances ' that he will always ' defend and support' their Protestant Religion. They proceed, then, to acquaint his Majesty with their decision as to ' Officers in the Army/ referred to in his Speech ; and, quoting an Act of Parliament in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of his Royal brother, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1377. 2 Ibid. p. 1378. chap, vii."] LAST WORDS OF JAMES TO PARLIAMENT 303 A.D. 1685 J entitled, 'Act for preventing Dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants/ they say : — ' We do, out of our bounden duty, humbly represent unto your Majesty, that these officers cannot by law be capable of these employments ; and that the incapacities they bring upon themselves thereby can no way be taken off but by an Act of Parliament' They, there fore, intimate that they are ' preparing a bill to indemnify them from the penalties they have now incurred ; ' and ' because the continuing of them in their employments might be taken as a dispensing with that law, without any Act of Parliament (a consequence fatal to all rights and to all laws) ' they in conclusion 'beseech his Majesty to remove all grounds for such apprehensions or jealousies.' J On the very same day as this Address was approved of, the Court Party urged the Commons to settle about the Supply ; and Barillon, in his evening ' despatch ' reveals the cause of their eagerness : — ' If the money affair can be entirely separ ated from the other things which are agitated, the King will gain his end, and may dispense with the Parliament, at least for a considerable time.' 2 On the following day, the Supply having meantime been carried and secured to the tune of an additional £700,000, 'the impositions to continue for five years/ the King came to the Banqueting House at Whitehall, received the aforesaid ' Humble Address ' of the Commons, and delivered the follow ing rather suggestive Royal Answer : — ' I did not expect such an Address from the House of Commons, having so lately recommended to your consideration the great advantages a good understanding between us had produced in a very short time, and given you warning of fears and jealousies amongst ourselves. I had reason to hope that the reputation God hath blessed me with in the world would have created and confirmed a greater confidence in you of me and of all. that I say to you ; but, however you proceed on your part, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1378, 1379. 2 Ibid. p. 1384. 304 MR. COKE SENT TO THE TOWER Tbook n. 0 ^ La.d. 1685 I will be steady in all my promises I have made to you ; and be very just to my word, in this and in all my other Speeches.' 1 We quote in full these the last words ever spoken by a King of the Stuart line in the presence of Parliament. Their characteristic declaration about 'keeping promises/ at the very moment when James was plotting to the depths for the men and the money to overwhelm in blood and despotism every pledge that had ever escaped his lips, may reveal his very heart, and show that the defect of all his race had reached its climax in his narrow, cruel, false, and obstinate nature. A day passed ; and on November 18th, these words were gravely ' reported ' by the Speaker to the House. A ' pro found silence ensued for some time,' — men .being instinctively conscious that a crisis of our history was approaching. Mr. Wharton stood up and moved, 'that a day might be appointed to consider his Majesty's Answer/ and suggested Friday next. Mr. Coke, in seconding the motion, had the courage or the audacity to declare : — ' I hope we are all Englishmen, and are not to be frightened out of our duty by a few high words.' Lord Preston insisted on 'the words being taken down.' Mr. Coke insisted on withdrawing them and asking ' their pardon and the King's.' But the temper of the times was keen. He was ordered to retire into the Speaker's chamber. The debate raged high. Many ' spoke of his loyalty ; ' but 'none excused his words.' The idea of letting him off merely with a ' reprimand ' was scouted. The King's honour, was at stake. The cry rose, ' To the Tower ! To the Tower !' And so he was committed to the Tower, ' for indecent and undutiful reflecting on the King and this House.' 2 Meantime, the Lords also had begun to waken up, and, apparently on the same day, were busy discussing a proposal to fix a time there also for ' considering ' the King's Speech, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1385. 2 Ibid. pp. 1385, 1386. chap, vii."] ARBITRARY POWER AND POPERY 305 A.D. 1685 J . though they had already, without consideration, precipitately given him ' thanks.' Their predicament seems sufficiently ridiculous ; and the King who was almost ' constantly present' in the Upper House must have looked on with contempt, if not disgust, at his chosen tools thus swaying and bending before the popular gale that was now blowing. Fate seems to have smitten the King very harshly, for, according to Echard, it was his own beloved and be-praised ' Monarchical and Church of England men ' that led the way. The very Bishops thought it meritorious ; and Compton of London stood forth ' courageously ' as ' the mouth of the Bench.' x The Court Party strove hard to apply the gag, but they ' were outnumbered as well as out-argued.' Ralph says that it was boldly declared, in the King's hearing, ' that the Test was now the best fence they had for their Religion ; that if that were given up all the rest must soon follow ; and, above all, that if the King might by his authority supersede such a law, fortified by so many clauses and by an incapacity, then it was vain to think of law any more. ! ' 2 Sir John Reresby, referring to this debate, affirms that this ' invasion of the laws gave dissatisfaction to every one, except those who were Popishly inclined/ and declares that ' the very best of the King's friends, as well as his officers, were strangely alarmed thereat' 3 Men felt that they were in the hands of Arbitrary Power and of Popery at one swoop ! The man put forward to rebut all these charges, and allay these jealousies and fears, was none other than Jeffreys of the Bloody Assize, now, by your leave, no less a personage than Lord Chancellor of England ! He put on his biggest brow-beating style, and thundered and threatened 'like a bully.' But the Lords resented his ' frowns and his abuse ; ' and their backs rose higher and higher, the more arrogant and insulting he became. And the King had the mortifica- msuiting ne Decame. /\na tne r 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. pp. 1386, 1387. 2 Ibid. p. 1387. 3 Ibid. p. 1387. VOL. I. U 306 RULING WITHOUT PARLIAMENTS Tbook ii. ¦ La.d. 1685-87 tion to see the vote carried 'that on the 23rd the Speech would be considered.' x The crash had come ; either the King or the Parliament must yield. On Friday, the 20th, the Commons, and on Monday, 23d, the Lords, are determined to grapple once for all with this monster of Arbitrary Power, on whose back rides, scarcely veiled, Papal Supremacy. James has, however, one Constitutional weapon ready to hand, and he grasps it with a kind of fanatical hope that time will be on his side. He appears suddenly in the Upper House on November 20th, summons the Commons by Black Rod, before they can launch into their debate, and orders Jeffreys to intimate that ' for many weighty reasons ' it his will that Parliament be prorogued. 2 Barillon says, — ' The surprise was very great ; . . . every measure that had been brought forward is rendered null ; . . . and the grant of Supplies entirely done away.' He informs the King of France, that this step can only ' increase the discontent ; ' and prognosticates ' a great alteration in the affairs of England.' With this stroke, the Parliamentary clew is knocked com pletely out of our fingers ; and henceforth till the Revolution neither Parliamentary records nor statutes avail us. 3 Parliament was 'prorogued' on November 20th, 1685, — again on February 10th, May 10th, and November 22d, 1686, — again on February 15th and April 28th, 1687, and finally ' dissolved by proclamation ' on July 2d, of the same year. So that, once again, a deliberate and persistent effort was made to rule not only without a Parliament, but in spite of Parliament ; and a Roman Catholic King demanded in the same breath the concession of Arbitrary Power to himself and of Supremacy to the Pope of Rome. The wheel has turned completely round ; and the strain threatens, not only to scatter the spokes, but to smash the axle. We now 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1387. 2 Ibid. p. 1387. 3 Ibid. p. 1388. Chap. vii. 1 LIBERTY AND POTESTANTISM 3O7 •a.d. 1685-87 J J ' trace the issues, by the light of the general historians, till a new chapter of Parliamentary Journals opens before our eyes. The King, baffled in his attempt to extort from Parlia ment any sanction of the 'dispensing power' which he was determined to exercise as to the Test Act and other laws, made, if possible, a still more reckless effort to override the Constitution, in favour of the Popish Party. He first of all sounded the Judges. Finding four of them unbendable, he summarily dismissed these and replaced them by creatures of his own. Then he sent to their tribunal the case of Sir Edward Hales, a Roman Catholic officer in the Royal Army, and secured a decision to the effect : — ' That the dispensation of the King barred the application of the Test! The logical corollary was, — that the same dispensation might override every law on the Statute Book of the kingdom. James, with fanatical haste, embraced his op portunity. Roman Catholics were freely admitted into every office of trust and power. Roman Catholic Peers were sworn in as members of the Privy Council. A gorgeous Roman Catholic Chapel was opened for the King's use in the Palace of St. James's. Priests swarmed everywhere, and celebrated Mass openly, in defiance of the laws. The streets were again paraded by Monks in their many- coloured garbs. Even the Jesuits taught a crowded school in the Savoy.1 Nay, the blindest head in England was compelled to see that Constitutional Liberty and the Protestant Religion were doomed to perish together, if the King and the Court Party prevailed. For, because of a riot in the city of London over the opening of a new Popish Chapel, an army of 13,000 soldiers were encamped on Hounslow Heath, and the capital was virtually in a state of siege ! 1 Green's .5. H. ch. ix. sect. vi. p. 652. 308 ATTACK ON THE CHURCH [B00K "¦ „ J La.d. 1685-87 But the sheer fanaticism of James came to a climax in his more direct assaults upon the Church of England, the very men who till now had buttressed the throne of tyrants with their degrading doctrine of 'passive obedience.' He seemed eager to drive them into rebellion that he might have an excuse for filling every violently-vacated post with some tool of Rome. He revived the Star Chamber, already twice before declared illegal and treasonable by Parliaments, under the scarcely disguised appellation of an Ecclesiastical Commission ; and committed to seven men, with the abomi nated Jeffreys as their President, the execution of his Royal Supremacy as Head of the Church. A certain Dr. Sharpe dared, in spite of Court orders, to preach against Popery, and did not scruple to speak con temptuously of those who had been perverted by the pitiful arguments of Romish Missioners.' Compton, the Bishop of London, was ordered to suspend him summarily, but flatly refused to do so, except by the due process of Church laws. The seven Commissioners at once ' suspended ' both Bishop and Vicar by their sole and illegal fiat ! But the worm, thus cruelly trampled on, began at last to turn. Every pulpit in the land rang ' with denunciations ' of Popery ; and pamphlets and tracts, from Tillotson, Stillingfleet, and hosts of lesser men, poured in thousands from the press.1 The Popish Party, however, believed that never such an opportunity would again arise of reclaiming England for the Holy See ; and, though a few of the wiser Roman Catholics were shaking their heads warningly at these tyrannical onslaughts, no word was uttered by any of them to condemn the settled purpose of the King and his minions — viz., by all or any means to bend or to break the will of the Nation, and bow its neck once again in subjection to the Pope of Rome. 1 Green's .5". H. ch. ix. sect. vi. p. 653. chap. vii. -| INVASION OF THE UNIVERSITIES 309 a.d. 1685-87 J ° * Time was precious, and so a dash was made at the Church's fountain-head, her ancient Universities. ' Father ' Francis was sent to Cambridge, with a Royal letter re commending him for the degree of Master of Arts. He refused to sign the Articles, and was accordingly ' rejected.' Thereon the Vice-Chancellor was ignominiously cashiered ! On the other hand, at Oxford, Massey, an avowed Roman Catholic, was presented by the Crown to the Deanery of Christ Church ; a pervert, the Master of University College, was ordered and authorised to remain at his post, despite his change of Religion ; and, worst of all, every step yielded only leading on to something more detestable, Farmer, a man of ' notoriously infamous life/ but a Papist, was re commended by the King to the now vacant Mastership of Magdalene, perhaps the wealthiest post of the kind in Europe. The ' Remonstrance ' of the Fellows was haughtily rejected ; so they calmly held on their way, and chose Dr. Hough to the office. The seven Commissioners high handedly declared this appointment ' null and void ; ' but recommended James, out of pure shame, to drop the scandalous Farmer, and make a less objectionable nomina tion. The King appointed Parker, the Bishop of Oxford, and ' one of the meanest of his Courtiers.' The Fellows stuck to their guns. James visited Oxford, and summoned them before him, and bullied them thus :— ' I am King. I will be obeyed. Go to your Chapel this instant, and elect the Bishop. Let those who refuse look to it ; for they shall feel the weight of my hand!' For the honour of human nature, we are glad to record that they defied his threats, and held on to the path of duty. Thereon, Oxford University was ' visited ' by a Special Commission. Hough was pronounced an 'intruder/ and his appeal to the law roughly set aside. The Fellows were ' deprived.' The door of the President's house was burst open ; and Parker violently 3IO APOSTASY THE PRICE OF LOYALTY [book n. ° ¦ L.A.D. 1685-87 'installed.' He dj'ing soon after, twelve Roman Catholic Fellows were added in a single day ; and the Mastership was conferred on a Popish Bishop in partibus ! 1 By similar infatuated treatment, James seemed to set himself to rouse not only the Masses but the Nobles. The Earls of Clarendon and Rochester, his two brothers-in-law by his first wife, Anne Hyde — the one Lord-Lieutenant in Ireland, the other Lord Treasurer in England — were ruth lessly set aside for refusing to change their Religion. Roman Catholics were promoted ; Lord Bellasis became First Lord of the Treasury, and Arundel the Lord Privy Seal. Lord Petre, a Jesuit, was even sworn in to the Privy Council. Further, the Earl of Castlemaine was sent to Rome, under the fateful designation of ' Ambassador Extraordinary/ to make the King's 'obeisance to the Pope/ and to pave the way for ' reconciling his kingdom to the Holy See.' By Act of Parliament, to have any communion with the Pope, had been solemnly declared to be ' High Treason.' But no conceivable consideration could influence the Popish Party or the King. A Nuncio appeared on the scene, from the Pope of Rome ; and James received him in ' Royal state ' at Windsor, with a gorgeous and effusive ceremonial. Four Roman Catholic Bishops were consecrated as 'Vicars Apostolic/ and were let loose to do their work throughout the three kingdoms, under the ' dispensation ' of James. At length, in face of every warning, 'Apostasy was demanded as the price of Loyalty! The Duke of Norfolk, bearing the sword of State before the King as he went to Mass, stopped short outside the Chapel door. ' Your father would have gone farther ! ' said the King reflectingly. 'Your Majesty's father was a better man,' retorted the Duke keenly, ' and he would not have gone so far ! ' The Duke of Somerset was ordered to introduce the Papal Nuncio into the Presence Chamber. 'I am advised,' said he, 'that I 1 Green's .?. H. ch. ix. sect. vi. p. 654. chap, vn.-] DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE 311 a.d. 1687 J ° cannot obey your Majesty without breaking the law.'1 The King angrily replied, — 'Do you not know that I am above the law?' And the Duke fearlessly retorted, — ' Your Majesty may be, but I am not ! ' He was scornfully dismissed from his office. Bitterly resenting the conduct of the Churchmen and the Nobles, and recognising that no price that he could offer would buy them to his side, the King fell upon another wild expedient. He thought to purchase the friendship, and the silent assent, if not active support, of the Protestant Dis senters, by granting to them all the liberties which he was determined to exact on behalf of Popish Dissenters.2 This was the origin of James's famous 'Declaration of Indulgence.' It was thrown as a bone to the Non-conformists to keep them quiet, while he murdered the Church of England and set up Popery in its stead. But Protestants saw the trap. They refused the bait. Baxter, Howe, Bunyan, and all the nobler spirits, declined for any personal or sectarian gain to lend themselves, even indirectly, to the overthrow of National Liberty. This measure had in it, nevertheless, many good points, had these been presented honestly, and not as the hypo critical mask of Popery and Arbitrary Power. It was published on 4th April 1687. It ' granted all his subjects the free exercise of their Religion, in addition to the perfect enjoyment of their Property.' This paragon of tolerance then has the face to say that he had always declared, ' that conscience ought not to be constrained, nor people forced in matters of mere Religion ! ' Descending to particulars, he repeated his vow, whatever that might be worth, of 'pro tecting the Church of England, as by law established.' He cancelled ' all manner of Penal Laws whatsoever in matters Ecclesiastical.' He gave ' free leave to all to serve God in their own way, publicly or privately, provided nothing was 1 Green's i1. H. ch. ix. sect, vi, pp. 654, 655. 2 Ibid. p. 655. 312 NOT A BAD 'APOLOGIA' [book n. 0 La.d. 1687 taught to alienate the people from the Government/ And finally, he abrogated, at a stroke, 'not only the so-called Tests and Declarations, but the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance,' and granted under the Great Seal 'dispensation' from the same to all persons in offices of trust and power.1 Had these materials been presented to us on their bare merits, apart from the unspeakable falseness and cruel despotism of James's own life, later ages might have con structed from them a not bad Apologia for the last of the Stuart kings. There is here the foreshadowing, at least, of not a few things which wiser and happier times have striven to realise. But our forefathers turned away, almost as one man, with loathing from the purchase of even their own liberty at such a price. And well for us, and for all we now hold dear, that they had the soul to do so ! A year passed by. Vain attempts had been made by 'regulations/ by fresh 'charters,' by inquisitions through ' lieutenants and justices,' to prepare the way for a packed Parliament, ' pledged to repeal the Test' Lord-lieutenants and Magistrates were dismissed in scores, and others illegally thrust into their places. But the opposition was too solid, too widespread. No Parliament could be secured that would not be pledged to the teeth to protect Protestantism and Liberty against Popery and Arbitrary Power.2 The Peers, the Gentry, the Traders, were now pulling themselves everywhere together into an impregnable phalanx. The heart of the Nation was as tinder, waiting for the spark. Was it fate, was it the Nemesis of injured freedom, or was it the retributive guidance of a righteous God, that James himself, of all men in the world, should rush forward and flash out that spark of doom on himself and his house ? At any rate, this he blindly and madly did. On April 27th, 1688, he issued a fresh Declaration of 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. iv. p. 1388, 1389. 2 Green's S. H. ch. ix. sect. vi. pp. 655, 656. chap, vii."] THE TRIAL OF THE BISHOPS 313 a.d. 1688 J J J Indulgence ; and ordered it this time ' to be read on the two following Sundays by every Clergyman at the close of Divine Service.' The Church had preached up ' passive obedience.' And now the vultures were coming home to roost ! But ' the sticking-point ' was reached at last. Death were better than such humiliation. Sancroft of Canterbury, and the six Bishops within reach, at once took action. They signed a temperate ' Protest ' to be forwarded to the King, ' declining to publish an illegal Declaration.' The Indulgence was read in only four pulpits in all London, the people angrily stamp ing out when the Clergyman began its first words. The response throughout all the country was the same. Mean time, when the Archbishop waited on James and submitted the respectful 'Protest/ the King loudly declared it 'the standard of rebellion/ and ordered the seven Commissioners to ' deprive ' the Bishops on the spot. Even Jeffreys, how ever, began to quail before the rising tide of scarcely smothered rage, and advised to ' libel ' them in the usual way. The Bishops refused to give bail, and were marched as prisoners to the Tower. Their procession was such a triumph as London had seldom seen. The population in tens of thou sands shouted themselves hoarse with ' applause.' The soldiers of even the Royal Army drank their health amidst boisterous ' cheers.' The sentinels at the Tower knelt and implored their ' blessing ' as they passed. To all entreaties from the really alarmed Court Party to yield, the infatuated King had but one obstinate reply : ' Indulgence ruined my father ! ' On June 29th, the patriotic Bishops were placed as criminals at the bar of the King's Bench ; and the heart of London and of England literally boiled with passion. The Judges were miserable tools of the Court. The Jury had been shamelessly packed. But the insuppressible indignation of the People would brook no further insult. And when the words at length came from the lips of the foreman — 'Not Guilty,' — a mighty roar of 314 THE PANIC OF KING JAMES [book ii. " ' ^ La.d.. 1688 frenzied delight shook the walls, was re-echoed from' one end of London to another, and was shouted by the soldiers on Hounslow Heath, just as James was leaving the camp ; while. horsemen, ready mounted, caught the news, and spurred to carry it on foaming steeds along every highway in England. Before the end of that year, James was a fugitive, and everything had been lost. On the very day of the Acquittal, an ' invitation ' had been despatched from London to the Prince of Orange,1 as husband of Mary the Heir- Apparent, to intervene by arms for the restoration of Constitutional Liberty and for the preservation of the Protestant Religion. And, on the 5th of November, the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot, William cast anchor in Torbay with six hundred troopships, escorted by fifty men-of-war, and all England already virtually on his side. James now gave way to helpless, hopeless panic. He dissolved the Ecclesiastical Commission. He restored the Magistrates that had been violently displaced. He gave back to the boroughs the Charters of which they had been robbed. He produced proofs of the birth of a lawful heir by his wife, the Princess of Modena, which the Patriotic Party despised as a Popish imposture ! But every day convinced him that he stood almost absolutely alone. His officers were secretly pledged to William and Mary's cause. Danby had rallied York to the cry — ' A FREE PARLIAMENT and the Protestant Religion ! ' Every county, and almost every city, rose at the same call. James fell back from Salisbury on London, only to find that his other daughter, the Princess Anne, had fled to the protection of Danby. ' God help me ! ' cried the broken-hearted tyrant at last ; ' my own children have forsaken me.' He tried to escape, after his wife and child, from the Isle of Sheppey, but was seized as a suspected Jesuit, and brought back to London. In vain he offered to call a Free Parliament ; in vain he 1 Green's .£ H. ch. ix. sect. vii. p. 664. chap, vii.-] IRREFRAGABLE TESTIMONY 315 A.D. 1688 J sent a Commission to Hungerford to treat with William. The Prince preserved an ominous silence to all his appeals ; the troops entered London in triumph ; and James was plainly, though indirectly, told that he had better make himself scarce. Means of escape were ostentatiously placed within his reach. He embarked on 23d December, never to return — at least, never to England.1 The history of the Revolution Settlement in its relations to Popery, and of all that has since transpired to the present day, so far as it can be painted from Parliamentary Journals and National Statutes, will form the remaining part of this work. Meantime, let our readers mark how almost every question of these latter days has already been fought out, in principle at least, through blood and tears, through prison and fine, through Revolution and Civil War, by those who have gone before us. There is no claim now made by Popery in Great Britain, that has not been substantially made before, as reported in the pages of this History. There is no con cession to Popery, now demanded or suggested, that has not been already made and granted, from the humblest civil and religious Toleration, up through every step of Equality and Supremacy, in Church and State, till we reach a Popish Sovereign seated upon the throne. Now the irrefragable testimony of all our history has been, that Popery, not as a Religion merely, but as making certain Political claims, is dangerous to the welfare of the State ; that every concession made to it in the past has been utilised for the interests of the Papacy and against the interests of the Nation ; and that such concessions had in every case to be cancelled and withdrawn, in order to the protection and preservation of Constitutional Freedom and Religious Liberty. The facts of history never lie to us, never deceive us. We leave them here to tell their own truth, to proclaim their own lessons. If, in the coming days, history 1 Green's 5. H. ch. ix. sect. vii. pp. 665-667. 316 THE TRUMPET-BLAST OF HISTORY [book ii. La.d. 1688 repeats itself, if the modern Popish crusade ' to bend or to break the Imperial Will of Britain ' is allowed once more to drive the coach of State to the brink of national perdition, — we call posterity to witness, that these Kingdoms shall, in that case, have permitted their Religion and their Liberty to be imperilled, not in ignorance of the principles at stake, and not unwarned by the loudest trumpet-blast which their own history through all its past centuries could blow. BOOK THIRD THE REVOLUTION SETTLEMENT PARLIAMENT versus POPE AND KING A.D. 1688 — 1702 From the Abdication of James Second till the Death of William Third CHAPTER I FROM THE HAGUE TO ST. JAMES' PALACE a.d. 1688— 1689 HERE, after travelling through nearly six centuries, we enter upon the first page of our Modern History. With the Abdication of James, all open pretence to Arbitrary Government vanished out of Britain ; and the years that have since elapsed have been occupied with the slow but pro gressive evolution of that Constitutional Government, whose essential principles were re-affirmed and secured at the Revolution Settlement. Holding on by the clew which has guided us hitherto, we enter once more upon the now familiar field of Parlia mentary Journals and Public Statutes. And these we shall examine and analyse, not to write a general history of the Nation ; but to show, from incontrovertible and impartial testimony, the influence of the Claims of the Papacy, and the conceding or cancelling of the same from time to time, on the development of our Constitutional Liberty, civil and religious. While still, as heretofore, we leave aside all special pleading or appeals, trusting only to the facts re corded on the authority of Parliament, and the Laws enacted by its wisdom, to teach the irresistible lesson which this History is fitted and intended to enforce. William Henry, the Prince of Orange, husband of our Princess Mary, though protesting against the reckless con duct of his father-in-law, and though invited by many of the 320 WILLIAM'S PRETERNATURAL CAUTION ["book iii. La.d. 1688 most representative public men in England to take up arms in defence of his wife's inheritance, showed almost preter natural caution in committing his fortunes to that perilous sea. Dykvelt, his ambassador, kept him fully alive to all the issues, organised and compacted the party opposed to James, and sustained, through the treachery of Sunderland and the adhesion of nearly all the great Whig leaders, a regular and complete correspondence betwixt the Prince of Orange and his supporters in England. And it would almost appear that that which drove William to action at last was what many regarded as a ' Popish invention '—the an nouncement that James's second wife, Mary of Modena, after five years of baffled hopes, had at last blessed him with a son and heir. William, roused by this unexpected complica tion, exclaimed to Dykvelt — ' It must be now or never ! ' openly marshalled forces at the Hague, and braced himself for the most resolute action. James, on his part, had always been counting on the aid of France in any last emergency ; but, at this crisis of our history, and of the history of Europe, the King of France, blundering fatally, threw his armies not against Holland but against Germany. That blunder of Lewis was the salvation of Britain. The States-General had their hands set free. They sanctioned the avowed enterprise of the Prince of Orange. In September 1688, the King of France declared war against Germany ; and on the 10th of October following, the Prince of Orange issued a public Manifesto to vindicate his British undertaking in the face of Europe. This FIRST DECLARATION x of the Prince of Orange is a noble State document ; and every sentence of it deserves to be studied as of prime importance. It lies as one of the corner stones of the Constitution ; and the most cursory glance will at once reveal its vital place in our present History. Premising that 'public peace and happiness cannot be 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. i-ii. CHAP A. HAP-/;„1 THE PRINCE'S FIRST DECLARATION 321 ,d. i 688 J preserved where the Laws, Liberties, and Customs established by the lawful Authority in it are openly transgressed and annulled/ he declares that to be ' more especially ' the case, ' where the alteration of Religion is endeavoured, and that a Religion which is contrary to law is endeavoured to be intro duced.' In that event, ' those most immediately concerned are indispensably bound to preserve and maintain the established Laws, Liberties, and Customs, and, above all, the Religion and Worship of God that is established among them; and take effectual care that the inhabitants of the said State or Kingdom may neither be deprived of their Religion nor of their Civil Rights.' It is ' upon grounds such as these ' that he cannot longer forbear declaring, to his great regret, that ' those Counsellors, who have chief credit with the King, have overturned the Religion, Laws, and Liberties of these realms, and subjected them in all things relating to their consciences, liberties, and properties, to Arbitrary Government ; and that not only by secret and indirect ways, but in an open and undisguised manner.' . . . He then accuses these Evil Counsellors for the 'colouring' of this project, of inventing and setting on foot 'the King's dispensing power/ — and affirms, almost con temptuously, 'that nothing is more certain than that, as no laws can be made but by the joint concurrence of King and Parliament, so likewise laws thus enacted cannot be repealed or suspended but by the same authority.' From the King's prerogative to 'pardon a transgressor, as in cases of treason or felony, it cannot with any colour of reason be inferred that the King could entirely suspend those laws ; ' unless, indeed, it be ' pretended that he is clothed with a despotic and arbitrary power ' — ' a strange and execrable maxim.' He then somewhat scornfully refers to the favourable sentence obtained from the Judges, — 'as if it were in the power of the twelve' Judges to offer up the Laws, Rights, and Liberties of the whole nation to the King.' Besides, the VOL. I. x 322 PRINCIPLES AT STAKE [book m. J L-A.D. 1688 Bench had been deliberately tampered with and corrupted — Judges whose conscience could not concur being 'turned out,' and others substituted in their room, some of whom being professedly Papists are ' by law incapable of all such employments.' Further, the Prince recalls and emphasises the fact that James, on coming to the Crown, though 'professing the Popish Religion/ was openly received and acknowleged by all the three kingdoms ' without opposition ; ' and did then 'promise and solemnly swear at his Coronation that he would maintain his subjects in the free enjoyment of their Laws, Rights, and Liberties ; and, in particular, that he would maintain the Church of England, as it was established by law.' Then, referring to the divers and sundry ' enactments for the preservation of those Rights and of the Protestant Religion/ he declares that 'the Evil Counsellors have in effect annulled and abolished all those laws/ such as the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, and the Test, 'both with relation to Ecclesiastical and Civil Employments.' Having thus laid down clearly and fully the Constitu tional principles at stake, the Declaration condescends to particulars, and deals, first of all, with Ecclesiastical affairs. The setting up of the Commission, for the cognisance and direction of everything pertaining to Religion, is branded as 'not only without any colour of law, but against most express laws to the contrary.' One member of that Com mission ' openly professed the Popish Religion ; ' and all its transactions, such as ' suspending ' the Bishop of London, ' turning out ' the Fellows of Magdalen, etc., were not only the over-riding of their lawful Ecclesiastical privileges, but were directly 'contrary to the express provisions of the Magna Charta.' And, on the same line, the Evil Counsellors, ' served and seconded by those Ecclesiastical Commissioners,' are charged with casting off ' all restraint of laws ' whatso ever ; inasmuch as they have ' not only secured orders for the CHAP* rA„"l DESPOTIC AND ARBITRARY POWER 323 A.D. 1688J ° ° building of churches and chapels for the exercise of the Popish Religion/ but have also 'procured the erection of divers Monasteries ; ' and, in contempt of law, ' set up several Colleges of Jesuits for corrupting of the youth/ — daring even to promote ' a Jesuit to be Privy Councillor and a Minister of State.' Turning then to Civil affairs, he shows in long array the ravages of this same Arbitrary Power. Lieutenants, Sheriffs, Justices of the Peace, etc., who 'would not concur in the repeal of the Test and the Penal Laws/ were unceremoniously ' turned out/ and others of a pliable or Popish turn substi tuted in their places. Towns had been constrained to deliver up their 'charters/ and Magistrates, either Popish or Popishly inclined, had been intruded upon them. The Judges had been tampered with, deprived of their indepen dence, yea, in some cases of their office, in order that all laws might be administered solely according to ' the good- liking' of these Evil Counsellors. Civil justice had been brought into ' great uncertainty and contempt ; ' for every sentence pronounced by a Popish Judge or Magistrate was, in the eye of law, ' null and void.' In Military affairs the havoc was not less appalling. Papists had not only been ' armed,' in despite of the laws, but Papists had 'likewise been raised to the greatest Military trusts both by sea and land ; and these, strangers as well as natives, Irish as well as English.' By these means, ' they were masters of the Church, of the Government, and of the Courts of Justice — all being subjected to a Despotic and Arbitrary Power, maintaining and executing its wicked designs by the assistance of the Army, and thereby enslaving the Nation.' The 'dismal effects' of all this are more evidently illustrated by pointing to the then condition of Ireland, ' where the whole Government was in the hands of Papists/ and where, 'under just apprehensions, Protestants were 324 THE LAST AND GREAT REMEDY [book in. J ^ La.d. 1688 abandoning the kingdom and their estates in great numbers, — remembering well that cruel and bloody Massacre which fell out in that Island in the year 1641.' The case of Scotland also pointed the same moral — for there the King had already ' assumed an arbitrary power both over the Religion and the Laws.' England's enslavement would come next, ' as soon as matters are duly prepared for it.' Touching at length upon the 'Remedies' for those oppressions, the Prince vindicates ' the action of the Bishops,' and the ' right of lawful Petition,'— declares that he himself and the Princess had 'signified to his Majesty what their thoughts were, and hoped he had proposed an expedient for the peace of the kingdom,' — blames these Evil Counsellors for ' putting ill constructions on all his good intentions,' — and then declares that ' the last and great remedy for all those evils is the calling of a Parliament for securing the Nation against the evil practices of these wicked Counsellors.' The Declaration, however, sets forth at length the special diffi culties created by the late Government in the way of such a remedy, — ' no Parliament can be lawful, for which the elections and returns are made by Popish Sheriffs and Mayors ; and therefore, as long as the Authority and Magis tracy is in such hands, it is not possible to have any lawful Parliament' Nay more, and 'to crown all,' there are 'great and violent presumptions' that the 'pretended Prince of Wales was not born by the Queen/ as published by these Evil Counsellors: 'there hath appeared, both during the Queen's pretended bigness, and in the manner in which the birth was managed, so many just and visible grounds of suspicion that not only We ourselves, but all the good subjects of these King doms do vehemently suspect,' ..." and yet there was not any thing done to satisfy us, or to put an end to these doubts.' The Prince therefore proclaims to all the world, in view of his ' right to the Succession ' on behalf of his Consort, and chap. I. "] A FREE AND LAWFUL PARLIAMENT 325 a.d. 16S8-I ° J of the ' particular affection of the English nation ' not only to himself but to the States-General, that he ' cannot longer excuse himself from espousing their interests, and from con tributing all that in him lies for the maintaining both of the Protestant Religion, and of the Laws and Liberties of these Kingdoms.' The Army that accompanies him is not for conquest, but only to defend him from the violence of those Evil Counsellors,' and his expedition has ' no other design but to have assembled, as soon as possible, A FREE and lawful Parliament.' The boroughs are commanded to ' return to their ancient Prescriptions and Charters ; ' the ' Writs are to be addressed to the proper officers/ according to the, law ; none are 'to choose or be chosen Members of Parliament, but such as are qualified by law ; ' and the ' Parliament thus lawfully chosen is to meet and sit in full freedom/ and the two Houses to concur ' after full and free debate.' They are to prepare ' such laws as they deem necessary for the security and maintenance of the Protestant Religion ;' and such as may ' establish a good agreement betwixt the Church of England and Protestant Dissenters ; ' as also ' for the covering and securing of all such who would live peaceably under the Government, as becomes good subjects, from all persecution on the account of their Religion — even Papists themselves not excepted.' He pledges himself ' to concur in everything which a free and lawful Parliament may determine ; protesting that his sole design is ' the preservation of the Protestant Religion, the covering of all men from persecution for their con sciences, and the securing to the whole nation the free enjoy ment of their Laws and Rights and Liberties under a just and legal Government' . . . Having hinted at the need for action on the same lines, in Scotland and Ireland, he closes this memorable Declaration with these words : — ' We will en deavour, by all possible means, to procure such an Establish- 326 KEY-WORDS OF THE REVOLUTION [book m. 0 La.d. 1688 ment in all the three Kingdoms, that they may all live in a happy union and correspond together ; and that the Pro testant Religion, and the peace, honour, and happiness of these Nations, may be established on lasting foundations.' J This famous Declaration places in the forefront these two influences — Popery and Arbitrary Power. The man who refuses to take these two key-words as his guide never can understand the situation of national affairs in 1688. But this Manifesto was not issued without a memorable episode, through which, as a loophole, we see into the heart of the times. It had been printed and prepared for pub lication in the three Kingdoms, bearing date 10th October, when news reached the Prince of Orange that James and his Evil Counsellors were trying to nullify it, and defeat his expedition by their eager ' concessions ' to every popular demand. Therefore, on October 24th, William caused the following addition to be made, wherein every issue was focussed to a single burning point : — Hearing that the ' Subverters of the Religion and Laws of these Kingdoms have begun to retract some of their despotic and arbitrary power, and to vacate some of their unjust judgments and decrees,' he charges them with ' thereby hoping to quiet the people, and to divert them from demanding a secure re- establishment of their Religion and Laws under the shelter of our arms.' . . . Brushing aside their pretence that he ' in tends to conquer and enslave the Nation/ he points out that not only are his forces ' utterly disproportioned ' to any such 'wicked design/ but that he was first of all ' invited ' by, and now has in his company, 'great numbers of the principal Nobility and Gentry, men of eminent quality, and of known integrity and zeal both for the Religion and the Government of England,' whose presence covers him 'from all malicious insinuations.' ... He affirms his confidence that men ' will lay little weight on all the promises and engagements ' that 1 Hansard's P. II. vol. v. p. n. chap. I. 1 THE COUNTERFEIT DECLARATION 327 A.D. 1688-I J ' are being now so lavishly made, ' since there has been so little regard had in times past to the most solemn promises.' He regards their late redress as ' a plain confession ' of guilt, and shows its ' defectiveness ' in this keen and deep-cutting sentence : — ' They lay down nothing which they may not take up again at pleasure ; they reserve entire, and not so much as mentioned, their claims and pretences to an arbitrary and despotic power, which has been the root of all their oppression, and of the total subversion of the Government.' . . . And so he reiterates his previous plea, but in words that deserve to be preserved here entire, — ' It is plain that there can be no redress nor remedy offered, but in Parlia ment ; by a declaration of the Rights of the Subjects that have been invaded, and not by any pretended Acts of Grace, to which the extremity of their affairs has driven them ; therefore it is that we have thought fit to declare that we will refer all to a Free Assembly of the Nation in a Lawful Parliament' x Nor did the publishing of William's Declaration pass by without another and a very extraordinary episode. Some person, still unknown, — .' supposed to be/ according to Echard, 'Ferguson, or Johnstone, or Hugh Speke, which we know not how fully to believe or wholly to contradict/ — published A COUNTERFEIT DECLARATION. It would not delay us for a moment, were it not that it had a manifest influence on the movements of the time, and that it photographs for us the living spirit of those days — the frenzy created by Popery and Tyranny. It pretends to be issued by William, Prince of Orange, but he 'totally disowned it/ It is dated from the ' Headquarters at Sherborn Castle, the 28th November 1688 ; and was published and acted upon in not a few great centres throughout the kingdom. Referring to ' the high and undoubted proofs of his fervent zeal for the Protestant Religion/ William is made to say that 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. n-13. 328 A FIRE-WINGED MESSAGE r-BOOK in. La.d. 1688 he would ' spend his dearest blood and perish/ rather than fail to ' rescue England, Scotland, and Ireland from Popery and Slavery ; and in a free Parliament to establish the Religion, the Laws, and Liberties of these Kingdoms on such a sure and lasting foundation, that it shall not be in the power of any Prince for the future to introduce Popery and Tyranny.' He rejoices in 'the concurrence' of great numbers, the Nobility, Gentry, and People of England, ' of all ranks and qualities ; ' and particularly mentions the Army, ' raised to be the instru ment of Slavery and Popery/ from which many ' officers and common soldiers alike ' are flocking to his side, and ' desert ing the illegal service in which they were engaged.' Determined that a ' free Parliament must be called forth with,' and that, if possible, without the effusion of blood, 'except of those execrable criminals who have justly forfeited their lives for betraying the Religion and subverting the Laws of their native country/ — and declaring that no violence shall be done to any, ' not even to a Papist,' except in self-defence and in enforcement of the laws, the Prince is made to proclaim that ' all Papists in open arms, or with arms, ... or in any office, . . . upon any pretence whatsoever, contrary to the known laws of the land, . . . shall be treated as robbers, freebooters, and banditti ; . . . they shall be incapable of quarter, and entirely delivered up to the discretion of our soldiers.' Glancing at the rumoured ' concourse of armed Papists, especially to London and Westminster/ and the ' pestilent machinations of the Jesuits ' both in England and on the Continent, for the ' utter extirpation of the Protestant Religion/ he requires all Lieutenants and other Magistrates 'to disarm and secure all Papists whatsoever/ as by law they may and ought to do, as 'persons at all times, but now especially, most dangerous to the peace and safety of the Government ; that so . . . all power of mischief may be taken from them.' And, finally, he warns ' all Magistrates and others/ who CHAR Jo„l FROM THE HEART OF THE PEOPLE 329 a.d. 1 688 J ' refuse to assist, or suffer themselves to be cajoled and terrified out of their duty/ that he will regard them ' as the most criminal and infamous of men ; ' and that he will ' require at their hand the life of every single Protestant that shall perish, and every house that shall be burnt or destroyed, by their treachery and cowardice.' 1 This fire-winged message stirred the already kindling blood of the Nation. Unlike, in every respect, to the calm and statesmanlike Declaration of William, it caught and reflected the passions of the hour with perfect precision. And any one, who wishes to read truly the mighty tides of national life now setting towards our new era, must lay side by side with the judicial reasoning of the Prince and his advisers, this impassioned Manifesto from the heart of the people — galled and wincing under Popery and Tyranny. We have been thus full and explicit in regard to these earlier and fundamental documents of the Revolution, that we may, with only a passing reference, when the same things are repeated again and again, hasten on to the more immediate subject of our inquiry. We do not need, for instance, to discuss the ' negotiations ' betwixt James and the Prince of Orange. William landed at Torbay on November 5th, — the country was flooded with copies of his Declaration, — and James immediately published his ' answer' to the same. William is therein bitterly accused of ' usurping the Royal Authority/ of calling in question ' the legitimacy of the Prince of Wales/ and of making the pretended anxiety for a Free Parliament impossible 'so long as he kept an Army of Foreigners in the heart of the kingdom/ And James represents himself as eager and resolved to call a Free Parliament ' so soon as his kingdom should be delivered from this Invasion ! ' 2 To the Petition, presented, despite James's threats about ' taking it ill/ by the two Archbishops, and signed by all the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 13-15. 2 Ibid. pp. 15-16. 330 PROPOSALS FOR A TREATY [book in. JJ La.d. 1688 Protestant Lords then inLondon,both Spiritual and Temporal, he answered in the same strain. He did ' most passionately desire a Free Parliament' He ' promised, upon the faith of a King, that such a Parliament should at once be called, so soon as ' ever the Prince of Orange had quitted the realm ! ' 1 He prepared and proclaimed a General Pardon 'for the reconciling all public' breaches, and obliterating the very memory of all past miscarriages/2 He sent word to the Prince of Orange that he had now ' issued his writs for the calling of a Free Parliament ;' and by his messengers, Halifax and Nottingham and Godolphin, he proposed to enter into a Treaty with the Prince ' for the adjusting of matters pertain ing to freedom of elections and security of sitting.' 3 William replied, 'with advice of the Lords and Gentlemen assembled,' and made these proposals : — ' that all Papists, and all persons not qualified by law, be disarmed and removed from all public offices, . . . that all Proclamations reflecting on him be recalled, . . . that the Tower of London be put into the custody of the city, ... as also Tilbury Fort, . . . that if the King be present at London during the sitting of Parliament, the Prince shall be also, — that their respective Armies be kept thirty miles distant, and that no further forces be brought into the kingdom, . . . that his troops be sufficiently maintained out of the Public Revenue, — and that, to prevent the landing of French or other Foreign troops, Portsmouth may be put into such hands as may be mutually agreed upon.' It may be doubted if these proposals were expected to be acceptable. By this time the King was practically stand ing almost absolutely alone. The famous ' Paper of Lord Devonshire ' had been delivered to the Mayor of Derby, and was everywhere received as expressing the mind of the Nation at large. The signatories 'deplored the invasions made of late years on their Religion and Laws.' They could 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 16-17. 2 Ibid. p. 18. 3 Ibid. p. 18. CHAP.A, IAP- }-~] DEVONSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAM PAPERS 33 1 d. i 688 J ' think of no other expedient to compose their differences than the meeting and sitting of a Parliament freely and duly chosen.' This they ' held themselves obliged, as far as in them lay, to promote ; the rather, because the Prince of Orange was willing to submit his own pretensions, and all other matters, to that determination.' They humbly ' prayed his Majesty to consent/ and hoped that his ' Army would give no interruption.' Then they closed with these solemn words, having all the gravity of a public Covenant : — ' But if, to the great misfortune and ruin of these Kingdoms, it should prove otherwise, they further declared that they would to their utmost defend the Protestant Religion, the Laws of the kingdom, and the Rights and Liberties of the subject'1 In the same strain, the ' Nottingham Paper/ subscribed by a vast multitude of the Nobility and Gentry, echoed the kindling resolution of the whole Nation. They were ' not willing to deliver their posterity over to Popery and Slavery/ In opposition to the same they were determined ' to join the Prince of Orange for the recovery of their almost ruined Laws, Liberties, and Religion.' They appealed to ' all good subjects, with their lives and fortunes to assist them, and not to be bugbeared with the opprobrious term of Rebels.' No rational person ' could judge it rebellion to defend their Laws and Religion, which all English Princes have sworn at their Coronation.' They indeed 'owned it rebellion to resist a King that governed by law ; but he was always accounted a tyrant that made his will his law ; and, to resist such an one, they justly deemed no rebellion, but a necessary defence.' On these grounds ' they doubted not the approval of every honest man's conscience ; ' and they implored ' the protection of the great God/ praying that the Nation might, 'through His inspiration, be turned unto one mind, and the adage verified — Vox Populi est Vox Dei! 2 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 17. - Ibid. pp. 17, 18. 332 A DOUBLE-HEADED DESPOTISM [book in. JJ La.d. 1688 It may, without self-conceit, be ingenuously doubted if ever in any great crisis of human history a whole people can be pointed to as more thoroughly alive to all the issues that were at stake. The instinct of the mass of the Nation, as truly as of its greatest statesmen, condensed all the ideas and problems of the age into two words — Popery and Tyranny. And in that order, too, Popery riding in rough shod amongst them on the back of Tyranny. Popery was hateful to them — Tyranny was hateful ; but Revolution, Civil War, anything, had better be faced than hand over themselves and their children to that double-headed despotism — a Pope at Rome, and a Tyrant at Home. The King's first attempt to escape, ' having disbanded his Army, burnt the writs for a new Parliament, and thrown the Great Seal into the Thames/ was followed by a memorable meeting in the Guildhall of London, summoned by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and attended by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City. It was held on December 1 ith, and the Lords made there a famous ' Declara tion' as to ' this great and dangerous conjuncture.' They were • zealously concerned for the Protestant Religion, the Laws of the land, and the Liberties and Properties of the subject.' They lament ' the Popish counsels ' so long prevailing, which have 'so miserably involved this realm.' And the King ' having now withdrawn himself/ they are ' unanimously resolved to apply themselves to the Prince of Orange' to procure a 'Free Parliament,' and to rescue those nations, with as little effusion as possible of Christian blood, from the imminent dangers of Slavery and Popery.' They pledge themselves to support the Prince in carrying out these designs ; and, in general, in promoting over the whole world the Protestant religion and interest' And, in the meantime, they undertake, 'for the peace and security of the great and populous cities of London and Westminster/ by taking care 'to disarm all Papists in or about the same, and to CHAP, A, IAP"iool WILLIAM'S SPEECH TO THE PEERS 333 D. 1 688 J secure all Jesuits and Romish Priests.'1 In this, and in everything else, they are ' ready, as occasion shall require,' to promote the Prince's 'generous intentions for the public good.' In the same vein, the City of London forwarded an ' Address of Welcome ' to the Prince, encouraging him ' to carry on and perfect his glorious designs to rescue three king doms from Slavery and Popery, and in a Free Parliament to establish the Religion and the Laws and Liberties of these kingdoms upon a sure and lasting foundation.' They cordially invited his Highness to repair to ' the Capital City,' where he would be ' received with universal joy and satisfaction.'2 Accordingly, on December 2 ist, we find about sixty of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal assembled in Council at the Palace of St. James's, and we listen on that day to William's first Speech, as mouthpiece of the nation : — ' My Lords, I have desired you to meet here to advise the best manner how to pursue the ends of my Declaration in calling a Free Parliament for the preservation of the Protestant Religion, the restoring the Rights and Liberties of the king dom, and settling the same, that they may not be in danger of being again subverted.'3 Having uttered this characteristi cally short and practical speech, the Prince withdrew, and left the Peers face to face with their own thoughts, and with the destiny of their country. We feel, in these words, a touch of the grand Cromwellian force. The times were out of joint. It needed another Cromwell to set them right. The Lords, having solemnly read aloud the Prince's Declaration, readily voted their 'Thanks for his Highness's coming over/ resolved, for the future, ' to assemble in their ancient House at Westminster/ — appointed the 'five most eminent lawyers to assist them in room of the absent Judges/ — and signed, with a few exceptions, 'the Bond or Association of Exeter.'4 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 19, 20. 2 Ibid. pp. 20, 21. 3 Ibid. p. 21. 4 Ibid. p. 21. 334 JAMES'S FAREWELL MANIFESTO [book hi. 1a. D. 1688 On Christmas Day, about ninety of them assembled at Westminster, and voted an Address to the 'Prince of Orange,' desiring him, 'in this conjuncture/ to take upon himself 'the Administration of Public Affairs' till the meeting of the ' intended Convention, on the 22nd January next'1 This request is accounted for by the fact that technically there was no Government at present existing — the King having withdrawn finally on December 23rd, leaving behind him a Public Paper, the main burden of which, miraculous to relate, was, after certain personal references, an ardent plea for ' liberty of conscience !' His last words as King are, — ' I appeal to all men who are considering men, and have had experience, whether anything can make this Nation so great and flourishing as liberty of conscience?'2 One asks again and again, — ' Was this King incurably false, a liar and conscious of it? Or, is this one of those perplexing self- contradictions, those psychological puzzles, which baffle all historians ? An obstinate tyrant lisping about freedom ! A heartless persecutor, singing the praises of liberty of conscience ! We rather leave the facts standing nakedly here than attempt any solution of them. The summoning of the aforesaid Convention was an affair of supreme Constitutional perplexity. The departing King had wrecked the machinery by which an ordinary Parliament could be called. The Lords, however, sat upon it, and presented a ' Second Address ' to the Prince, desiring him, ' in this extraordinary conjuncture/ to issue 'Letters' subscribed by himself ' to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and to the several Counties, Universities, Cities, Boroughs, and Cinque Ports.'3 These Letters were to contain ' directions ' for the choosing of a free and lawful Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster on 22nd January next. Meanwhile the Prince himself had brought other coun- 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 23. 2 Ibid. p. 22. 8 Ibid. p. 23. CHAP. A, HAP'ioo"l CITY FATHERS AND COMMONERS 335 .. D. I688J sellors into the field. On the 23rd December, the very day of the King's withdrawal, he had issued a Special Order desiring ' all who had served in any of the Parliaments of Charles Second as knights, citizens, or burgesses/ as also ' the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, along with fifty Councillors of the City of London/ to meet him 'at St. James's, on Wednesday, the 26th of this instant December, by ten of the clock in the morning.'1 Besides the City Fathers, about one hundred and sixty of the old Commoners obeyed the summons of the Prince, and William made a similar speech as before : — ' I have desired you to meet me here to advise the best manner how to pursue the ends of my Declaration in calling a Free Parliament'1 Like the Lords, they felt uncomfortable out of their own quarters. The first thing they did, accordingly, was to ' agree to repair to the Com mons' House at Westminster,' where they chose for Chairman, Mr. Henry Powle. And then the spirit of the place threatened to settle down upon them ! They were immedi ately discussing, — 'What authority they had to assemble?' Finding hereon, that ' the request of his Highness the Prince was a sufficient warrant/ they were launching into another endless debate, ' How his Highness could take upon him the Administration of Affairs without a distinguishing name or title ? ' when a breeze of common sense from Serjeant Maynard thus ended the talk, and blew away the cobwebs, — ' That Assembly would have to lose a great deal of time if they waited till Sir Robert Southwell could conceive how this was possible !'2 In the afternoon, however, they managed to agree upon an ' Address to the Prince/ which had in it elements of the most sterling quality. Assembled, in ' this extraordinary juncture/ they tender, 'with an unanimous consent/ their most humble and hearty thanks to his Highness ' for coming over ' into this kingdom, and ' exposing himself to so great 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 24. 2 Ibid. pp. 24, 25. 336 WILLIAM'S MANFUL ANSWER [book in. J J La.d. 1688 hazards ' for the preservation of our Religion, Laws, and Liberties, and rescuing us from the miseries of Popery and Slavery.' For the pursuance of these ends, and for the peace of the Nation, they desire him to take upon himself ' the Administration of Public Affairs, both civil and military, and the disposal of the Public Revenues.'1 They further explicitly invoke his ' particular consideration of the present condition of Ireland ; and that he will endeavour by the most speedy and effectual means to prevent the dangers threatening that kingdom.' On the 27th, this Address was presented to William. He took a night to think over it, ' being a matter of weight' And on the 28th he answered the Lords in the morning, and the Commons in the afternoon. The ' Answer ' was at once modest and manful : ' As far as I am able, I will endeavour to secure the peace of the Nation, until the meeting of the Convention in January next.' As to the Public Revenue, ' I will take care to apply it to the most proper uses that the present affairs require.' As to Ireland, — ' I will endeavour to put it into such a condition as that the Protestant Religion and English interest may be maintained.' And, as to other matters, he closes with this true statesman-soldier's note, — ' I further assure you that, as I came hither for the preserva tion of the Protestant Religion, and the Laws and Liberties of these kingdoms, so I shall always be ready to expose myself to any hazard for the defence of the same.'2 Thus gravely and bravely were laid the new foundation- stones of our Modern British History. * Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 25. ' Ibid. pp. 25, 26. CHAPTER II CONVENTION-PARLIAMENT AND CLAIM OF RIGHTS A.D. I689 THE Grand Convention met at Westminster, on 22d January 1689, not only amid 'the expectations of the British dominions, but of all the neighbouring kingdoms and nations/1 In the Commons, the Right Honourable Henry Powle was chosen Speaker, — ' an honourable person, very well experienced in methods of Parliament, and every way qualified ' for that post of danger as well as honour. The Mace was called for, and placed upon the table ; and the House thereafter proceeded to the choice of its officers and to business. Thereon, a letter from the Prince of Orange was, by Jephson, his secretary, placed in the hands of the Speaker, and by him read aloud to the House. With soldierly directness and brevity, William intimated that since the administration of affairs had been put into his hands, he had done ' his utmost ' for the public peace and safety. ' It now lieth upon you/ he continues, 'to lay the foundation of a firm security for your Religion, your Laws, and your Liberties.' He does not doubt but that ' the ends ' of his Declaration will now be attained in such a full and free representation of the Nation ; and he trusts in God ... to send a spirit of peace and union . . . that no interruption may be given to a happy and lasting settlement.' The dangerous condition of the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 26-118. VOL. I. Y 338 EXPEDITION AND UNANIMITY [book in. JJ La.d. 1689 Protestants in Ireland, and the state of things abroad, oblige him to tell them that, ' next to the danger of unreasonable divisions/ nothing would be ' so fatal as too great a delay.' The States were under Declaration of War, and would need their troops at home ; and William closes with a note of confidence as to that ' return of friendship ' which he expects from them 'as Protestants and Englishmen.'1 A cry arose on every side to ' save time,' to shun ' need less debates/ and at once to vote the Prince an ' Address of Thanks.' The Upper House seems to have been of the same mind, but even more expeditious ; for, in the midst of the aforesaid hurried discussion, their messenger appeared with an ' Address to the Prince ' in his hand, in which the Commons at once concurred. Therein, the ' Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons assembled at Westminster,' being 'highly sensible of the great deliverance of this kingdom from Popery and Arbitrary Power/ and that their preservation was ' next under God owing to his Highness,' do return unto him their ' most humble thanks and acknow ledgments, ... as the glorious instrument of so great a blessing.' They further acknowledge his ' great care in the administration of public affairs,' and humbly desire him to take upon himself and to continue the same, both civil and military, as also the disposal of the public revenues, ' for the preservation of Religion, Rights, Laws, Liberties, and pro perties and peace of the nation. . . . All which we make our request to your Highness to undertake and exercise till further application shall be made by us.' The Prince, in the fewest possible words, gave ' answer ' — that he was ' glad what he had done had pleased ' them, that at their ' desire ' he would continue the administration of affairs, but that business must be expedited, ' not only for making a settlement at home upon a good foundation, but for the safety of all Europe.' 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 32, 33. chap. n. ] WILLIAM AND JAMES AND LEWIS 339 a.d. 1689I J JJ? That this plea for expedition was not a mere politic pretence became too soon painfully evident to all eyes. The whole country west of the Rhine had fallen by brilliant exploits into the hands of Lewis of France. The Palatinate was already conquered, and Germany seemed almost ready to fall at his feet, when James of England, the fugitive, appeared at St. Germains. With unerring glance, Lewis saw all that William's success in England implied. He withdrew from the Rhine, leaving all the countries behind him savagely and revengefully devastated. This stirred to the fighting point the blood of Germany, which the genius of William had knit together against France a year before by the Treaty of Augsburg. The reception of James II. by Lewis as still the ' King of England ' called forth from her a Declaration of War against France. Holland immediately followed suit. The adhesion of the Empire and of two branches of the House of Austria completed the Grand Alliance which the brain of the Prince of Orange had designed. France, at last, stood alone in Europe, and ringed on every side except Switzerland with allied foes!1 Truly might William say 'expedite your business/ — having his one eye steadily fixed on the dangerous condition of Ireland, and the other on the deadly turmoil at the heart of Europe. He stood out there before the world as the head of the Protestant Coalition. His antagonist represented Popery and Arbitrary Power. The Prince represented Protestantism and Constitutional Government. All the history of Christendom since lay in the issue of that conflict. The supreme distinction of William was and is, that while others were disposed to waste themselves on mere details, he saw the true centre of battle, and never wavered till that had been gloriously won, and the main issues once for all secured. 1 Green's S. H. ch. ix. sect. viii. pp. 668, 66q. 340 HAS THE KING ABDICATED ? [book hi. J^ Ia.d. 1689 The burning business of the time was solidly entered upon by the Commons on January 28th.1 In a Grand Committee of the whole House, Mr. Dolben inaugurated an epoch-making debate on 'the State of the Nation.'2 He affirmed that James II. was to be regarded as ' demised ; ' for, according to Hoffman the civilian, — ' If a Prince re linquishes the Government, he ceases to be King.'3 Sir Richard Temple continued, showing exactly why this debate concerns us here so vitally : — ' When a King attempts to destroy the roots of Government, he differs in nothing from a tyrant. . . . The King is fallen from the Crown ; and many think he is under an obligation of conscience to break the laws : ' 4 — that is to say, by his Popery. Mr. Comptroller Wharton, in answer to some question as to ' the possibility of deposing ' the King, protested : — ' Ab dication and dereliction are hard words ; but I would have no loop-hole to let in the King ; for I believe not myself, nor any Protestant in England, safe, if you admit him.' Serjeant Maynard sharply retorted : — ' The question is not, whether we can depose the King, but whether the King has not deposed himself.'5 Sir George Treby declares : — ' It is no less a question, than whether we shall be governed by Popery and Arbitrary Government, or whether we shall be rid of both. . . . We have found the Crown vacant, not made it so, and we are to supply the defect. . . . The King, in executing the laws, assumed a power to dispense with the laws in a lump. He dispensed with the Statute of Provisors ; and the con sequence was the Pope sent a Nuncio hither; and the consequence is, he declares " he can no longer nor further treat with the people in Parliament." ... It was the judg ment of King James I. in the Parliament of 1607, "that when a King breaks in upon his laws, he ceases to be 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 36. 2 Ibid. pp. 36-108. 8 Ibid. pp. 36-38. 4 Ibid. p. 38. 5 Ibid. pp. 39, 4.0. chap. ii. ] DIVINE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE 341 a.d. 1689J °^ King." . . . He is fallen from the Crown. He is under an obligation of conscience to break the laws. I think it was an error to let him into the throne ; that we may not make another, let us now keep him out' x John Somers, afterwards the great Lord Chancellor, reminded them that ' James I. protested, on a memor able occasion, "that if his posterity were not Protestant, he prayed God to take them from the throne." . . . The King's going to a Foreign Power, and casting him self into his hands, absolves, the people from their allegiance. He sent an ambassador to Rome, received a Nuncio from thence, received a Foreign jurisdiction, and set up Romish Bishops in England, that the Popish Religion might intervene with the Government, thereby to subject the Nation to the Pope, as much as to a Foreign Prince.' 2 Mr. Finch, second son to the Earl of Nottingham, argued against saying 'that the King had lost his title to the Crown, and lost his inheritance, or that the succession to the Monarchy was elective.' . . . He refused to call this ' a direct forfeiture of the Crown/ by the mal-administration of the King ; and compared it rather to ' a case of infancy, or lunacy/3 when the Parliament must provide for the government of the Nation. Sir Robert Howard then struck in with several original ideas and contended very strongly ' that the throne was vacant' When the King ' acts by his own will, and not by the laws, he is no King ; for he acts by power and tyranny. I have heard that the King has his Crown " by divine right," but we the People have divine right too. . . . The constitution of the Government is actually grounded upon pact and cove nant with the people. . . . What remains but that the King has made abdication of the Government, and at one stroke lopped off both Church and State? ... In my opinion 1 Hansird's P. H. vol. v. pp. 40-42. 2 Ibid. pp. 42-44. 3 Ibid. p. 45. 342 THRONE DECLARED VACANT [book in. °^ La.d. 1689 there is an abdication of the Government ; and it is devolved unto the people.' x Sir Robert Sawyer said : — ' I take the King's departure out of the kingdom to be an abdication of the Government. In all I have read, I never met, in so short a reign, the laws so violated and the Prerogative so stretched. In his " Declaration " he wishes that all his subjects were Catholics ; and, if in his power, would certainly have effected it. We must all have been Catholics, or not safe. The Church and the State were turned topsy-turvey. . . . His intention was to govern without law.' 2 Mr. Boscawen warmly urged a decision : — ' Gentlemen of foriiier Parliaments will remember they were told "that the King could not be true to his Religion, if he did not what he has done." I believe none are willing to go into Egypt again. To settle things now is the way to maintain both your Laws and your Religion. If the King's going away be a " demise," then you must supply the throne. And there is not only the King, but a little one beyond the sea too, that will pretend ! ' 3 At length, the debate ended in this famous Resolution, * perhaps the most remarkable ' in the annals of England : — 'That King James II., having endeavoured to subvert the Constitution of the kingdom, by breaking the original contract between King and People, and, by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons, having violated the funda mental laws, and having withdrawn himself out of this kingdom, has abdicated the Government, and that the throne is thereby become vacant' 4 On January 29th, a second stage in this great debate about the ' State of the Nation ' was reached. Colonel Birch, declaring that it was the hand of God that King James had 'deposed himself/ pointed out that for 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 46. 2 Ibid. p. 48. 3 Ibid. p. 49. 4 md. p. 50. chap, n.] FUNDAMENTAL RESOLUTION 343 a.d. 1689J J forty years they had been ' scrambling ' to save a little of their Religion ' out of the hands of Popery and Tyranny.' . . . ' James I. was so fond of the Spanish Match that he lost the Palatinate by it ; then followed pulling members out and committing them to prison. . . . Charles I. married a Papist, and all things from that time forward tended to Popery and a Civil War. ... It was not the fault of the Ministers of the Church of England ; nay, nor the Non conformists ; but Popery was in the box, and idolatry. . . . I remember what was said in the House, when King James was married to this Queen, — " men will follow their interests," and it was his interest to destroy the Protestant Religion, our Laws and Liberties. ... If then we are like to be ruined, if governed by a Popish Prince, my motion is, that you will vote it inconsistent with a Protestant State to be governed by a Popish Prince.'1 Major Wildman argued : — ' There is no Popish Prince but doth acknowledge the Pope to be supreme ; but it is treason to acknowledge that Supremacy here. . . . Our free and independent Government is not consistent with a Nuncio from the Pope.'2 Finally, the Resolution was carried in these terms, — ' That it hath been found, by experience, to be inconsistent with the safely and welfare of this Protestant Kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince! 3 Another stage in the debate was approached by Mr. Wharton urging them to the logical issue : — ' If the throne be " vacant," proceed to the filling of it/ — and proposing the Prince and Princess of Orange.4 Lord Falkland warned them, as ' the Prince had secured them from Popery/ so they ought to 'secure themselves from Arbitrary Government. . . . Before the question be put — Who shall be set upon the throne ? — I would consider, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 50, 51. 2 Ibid. pp. 51, 52. 3 Ibid. p. 52. 4 Ibid. p. 52. 344 ANOTHER VITAL RESOLUTION [book in.' °^ La.d. 1689 what powers we ought to give the Crown, in order to satisfy them that sent us hither.' J Sir Richard Temple advised to secure their Liberties first, under these three heads : — (1) ' Parliaments/ — to be guarded against encroachments, to provide for their certainty' and frequency, for their freedom and supremacy, and for their control of the Army; (2) 'Judges' — Westminster Hall to.be better filled with them, their appointment to be during life, and that they have salaries instead of fees ; and (3) the 'Coronation Oath' — to be taken upon entrance into the Government, ' and as we are sworn to our Kings, so they to be sworn to protect us.' J At length, under this head, the following vital resolution was carried : — ' That before the Committee proceed to fill the throne now vacant, they will proceed to secure our Religion, Laws, and Liberties!"1 Out of this arose the final stage of the debate, by a logical evolution. Serjeant Maynard warned them 'not to look too much one way on Arbitrary Government, lest they sit five years and never come to an end of it. . . . Take care of over loading your horse. . . . Don't undertake too many things ! '2 Lord Falkland replied : — ' It is for the people's sake we do all, that posterity may never again be in danger of Popery and Arbitrary Power.'3 Mr. Sacheverell appealed to them : — ' Secure this House, that Parliaments be duly chosen, and not kicked out at pleasure ; which never could have been done, without such an extravagant revenue, that they might never stand in need of Parliaments.' 3 Mr. Seymour pertinently asked : — ' Will you do nothing, because you cannot do all? Though the clock do not strike twelve at once, must it not strike at all ? Will you establish the Crown, and not secure yourselves ? What care 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 53. 2 Ibid. p. 54. a l0id. p. 55. chap. ii. ] THE LORDS' AMENDMENTS 345 a.d. 1689I I for what is done abroad, if we must be slaves in England, in this or in that man's power ? ' 1 Mr. Hampden, junior — son of him who stood for the Exclusion Bill, and grandson of him of Ship Money fame — protested that they must do more than merely 'fill the throne;' they must 'declare the Constitution and Rule of Government.'2 And Sir Christopher Musgrave wound up the debate with the practical hit : — ' You must have wheels before you can put the cart upon them ; ' and carried his motion for the appointment of a Committee 'to draw up and bring in general heads/ for 'asserting and securing the Rights and Liberties of the Nation.' 3 Here then we find ourselves at the fountain-head of that well, far up among the mountains of our history, out of which flowed the now small, but yet to become mighty, stream of influence, which we familiarly speak of as the Claim of Rights. This was its first inception. That was the egg which came out of this debate. Here also occurred a famous and most graphic episode in our history, on which we are sorely tempted to linger, but fidelity to our special theme constrains us to hasten on. It all arose over the conflict betwixt the Lords and Commons regarding the word 'abdicated' in the Parliamentary vote about King James.4 In the Upper House, after many learned and brilliant speeches, they carried two amendments on the message from the Commons, viz., (1) that instead of the word abdicated, they would substitute the word deserted ; and, (2) that these words, ' the throne is thereby vacant', 5 be entirely left out. When these amendments were communicated to the Commons on February 2d, the storm burst, and it was felt that the crisis of the Revolution movement had come at last. Sir Richard Temple pointed out that the Lords agreed to 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 56. 2 Ibid. p. 57. 3 Ibid. p. 58. 4 Ibid. pp. 58-108. 6 Ibid. p. 60. 346 CONFERENCE OF THE TWO HOUSES [book in. J^ U.d. 1689 all 'the premisses, — that James had subverted the Con stitution, had violated the original contract, and had with drawn himself'1 — but that they shrank from 'the only proper and necessary conclusion/ his renunciation, his ab dication of the Government. Lord Falkland uncovered the snake in the grass, hidden in the terms of the amendment : — ' If the vote is to be grounded merely upon the King's leaving the kingdom, he may come again, and resume the Government. But Abdication relates to breaking your laws ; and though the Lords stand by the premisses, yet they desert the conclusion, in leaving out "the throne vacant." ' 2 A few voices were feebly raised for the amendments ; but finally, nem. con., they were both rejected. The idea had burned itself into the heart of these representatives of the Nation, that if they did not declare the throne ' vacant/ and proceed to secure their Rights and Liberties before filling it again, the other alternative of a 'Regency,' during the 'de sertion of King James,' left them and their children as com pletely as ever at the mercy of Popery and Arbitrary Power. Accordingly a ' conference ' was sought with the Lords, which was managed on one side by the younger Hampden, and on the other by the Earl of Nottingham. The Commons insisted : — (1) ' That the word deserted doth not fully express the conclusion necessarily inferred from the premisses to which your Lordships have agreed, namely, "that King James H. hath endeavoured to subvert the Con stitution of the kingdom, by breaking the original contract between King and People, and hath violated the fundamental laws, and hath withdrawn himself out of the kingdom." Now the word " deserted " respects only the withdrawing, but the word " abdicated " respects the whole ; for which purpose the Commons made choice of it' They further insisted (2), 'That they cannot agree to leave out the words, "the throne 1 Hansard's/". H. vol. p. 61. '• Ibid. p. 62. chap. n. ] ARGUMENTS OF LORDS AND COMMONS 347 A.D. 1689I is thereby vacant ; " because ... if they should even admit only your lordships' amendment, as to "deserting" the Government, it would thence follow that the throne is vacant as to King James II., — deserting the Government being in true construction deserting the throne ; . . . and because, further, as to any other person the throne is also vacant, as is admitted by your Lordships having invited the Prince of Orange to take upon him the administration of public affairs . . . till the meeting of this Convention.' And finally, they wound up their argument by this stinging sentence — the idea of a mutual contract betwixt King and People having during these weeks become the most living article in the public creed : — ' It is from those who are upon the throne of England, when there are any such, from whom the people of England ought to receive protection ; and to whom, for that cause, they owe the allegiance of subjects : but there being none now, from whom they expect Regal protection, and to whom for that cause they owe the allegiance of subjects, the Commons conceive the throne is vacant'1 The Lords, on the other hand, by the Earl of Nottingham, insisted upon adhering to their word 'deserted,' — because the word ' abdicated ' was not known to the common law of England, 'and the Lords hope the Commons will agree to make use of such words only, whereof the meaning may be understood according to law, and not of such as will be liable to doubtful interpretations ; ' and, further, because, in the most common acceptation, ' abdication ' is ' a voluntary express act of renunciation, which is not in this case, and doth not follow from the premisses.' The Lords insisted also on leaving out the words about ' the vacancy ' of the throne, — because their agreeing 'that the King has deserted the Government/ and their applying to the Prince of Orange, necessarily implies nothing more than that King James hath ceased 'to exercise' the Government, so that 'the Lords 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 64, 65. 348 FINDING OF A UNITED PARLIAMENT [b°ok hi. D^ La.d. 1689 were and are willing to secure the nation against the return of the said King into this kingdom ; but not that there was such an abdication by him, or such a vacancy in the throne, as that the Crown was thereby become elective.' This last idea reveals the crux of the whole debate. To treat the Crown as ' elective/ the Lords cannot agree, ' because, by the Constitution, our Monarchy is hereditary ; because no act of the King alone can bar or destroy the rights of his heirs to the Crown ; and therefore, thirdly, if the throne be vacant of King James 11., allegiance is due to such person as the right of Succession doth belong to.'1 On all this being reported to the Lower House, the Commons again resolutely rejected both amendments. A debate at a ' free conference ' of both Houses was once more solicited and granted in the Painted Chamber. It took place on February 6th. The greatest names in Parliament of that day pass before us, — the learned Somers, the brilliant Holt, the politic Nottingham, the wary Treby, the logical Sache- verell, the blunt Pollexfen, the fiery Maynard, the cautious Clarendon, the philosophic Howard, the thoughtful Temple, and the radical Foley. The reader must imagine for himself how all day long the changes were rung, and how the words ¦ abdication ' and ' vacancy ' were hunted through every corridor of law and logic. We hasten to record that, next day, a message from the Lards to the Commons announced that the amendments had been absolutely withdrawn, and that the vote of the 28th January now stood as the finding of a united Parliament : — fames had abdicated ; the throne was vacant? Meantime, influences that do not appear on the Parlia mentary Records had probably as much to do with settling these issues as any of their debates. The personality of William counted for much ; and the loyal spirit of his wife, perhaps, for more. Mary flatly declined to be promoted to Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 65, 66. 2 Ibid. pp. 66-108. chap. ii. ] DECLARATION AND CLAIM OF RIGHTS 349 A.D. I689 J the throne alone, as the next heir, though the great Earl of Danby assured her that ' he could carry it.' Ralph says she made a sharp answer — ' that she was the Prince's wife, and that she would never be other than what could be in con junction with him, and under him;' and that she sent on to William ' both Danby's letter and her answer to the same.' And William, on the other hand, with a grand stolidity, not unrelieved by a touch of pretty sarcasm, refused to be treated ' as his wife's gentleman-usher ! n Before a man, who so perfectly knew his own mind, and stuck fast by his first principles, all the little coteries of their politics had ignominiously to collapse. His behaviour was not that of a place-hunter. He stayed at St. James's, and listened to all, but ' seldom made any answers.' He did not 'affect to be affable/ and took no pains to gain adherents. He had come over, ' on being invited/ to save the nation ; he had brought together a ' free and true Representative Assem bly ; ' he left it to them to do ' what was best for the good of the kingdom ; ' and, when all things were once settled, he said 'he should be well satisfied to go back to Holland again.'2 The Parliament felt that a very strong man was in the saddle at last. They were perfectly free, indeed, to do what they pleased ; but, if they meant to deal with him — they knew once for all, that his principles were fixed, and that they must take him or want him on his own terms ! The 13th February 1689 is for ever memorable in connec tion with our famous Declaration and Claim of Rights. It had been drawn up by Somers, and approved by the Convention. It was to form the mutual contract, on the acceptance of which the Crown was to be offered to William and Mary — they swearing fidelity to the Constitution, and the Nation swearing fidelity to them. This was one of the greatest days in our history. It might be called the Birthday of Modern Britain. About ten 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 63. 2 Ibid. p. 64. 350 ANALYSIS OF THE CLAIM OF RIGHTS [book in. JJ La.d. 1689 in the morning we see the Speaker, with his Mace, and all the Commons in coaches on their way to Whitehall. There, within the Banqueting House, he, the Right Honourable Henry Powle, and all his fellow-Commoners are ranged on the left hand, while the Marquis of Halifax, and all his Peers oi the House of Lords, stand on the right. At the upper end, the Prince and Princess of Orange solemnly enter, and stand ' upon the step under the canopy of State.' The Speakers of both Houses, with the Lords and Commons in their train, now approach them — ' making three obeisances, one at the lower end of the room, one in the middle, and one at the step where their Highnesses stood.' The Speaker of the Lords then informed their Highnesses of the Declaration, ' upon which both Houses had agreed,' and desired that it might now be ' presented ' to them. This being granted, it was ' read aloud by the Clerk of the Upper House/ in hearing at once of William and Mary, and of the Representatives of the Nation.1 It closely concerns our inquiry in this History, and deserves more than ordinary attention. No man can read it without feeling that, if we had a Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, we had as surely a Protestant Revolu tion in the seventeenth. The first sentence of the Declaration and Claim of Rights sounds this distinctive note so loud and clear that nothing but the most deliberate falsification of history can pervert it : — ' Whereas the late King James 11., by the assistance of divers Evil Counsellors, Judges, and Ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion, and the Laws and Liberties of this kingdom.' Thereon follow nine specified instances in which he did so, e.g. his claim to ' dispense with and suspend laws ' without consent of Parliament, his ' prosecuting of the Prelates for petitioning ' to be excused from concurring in these usurpa- 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 108. chap. ii. ] VITAL PART OF THE DECLARATION 35 1 a.d. 1689 1 JJ tions, his ' erecting a Court of Ecclesiastical Commissioners/ his ' levying money by pretence of Prerogative/ his ' raising a Standing Army' without consent of Parliament, his 'disarming Protestants and arming Papists ' contrary to law, his 'violating freedom of election of Members ' to serve in Parliament, his prosecution in the King's Bench of ' causes that were cognis ant only by Parliament/ and his ' divers other arbitrary and illegal courses.' The second 'whereas' refers to the mal-administration in the Courts of Justice : — ' Partial, corrupt, and unqualified persons' having served on juries, particularly in trials for High Treason ; ' excessive bail, excessive fines, and illegal and cruel punishments/ being instanced, and even ' grants and promises of these fines and forfeitures being made before any conviction or judgment' had been secured; 'all which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes, and the freedom of this realm.' The third 'whereas' brings us to the vital part of the Declaration of Rights, and must be here recorded in full : — 'And whereas the said late King James II., having abdicated the Government, and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the Prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from Popery and Arbitrary Power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protest ants, and other letters to the several Counties, Cities, Univer sities, Boroughs, and Cinque Ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them, as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster, upon the 22d day of January in this year 1688 (?new style 1689) in order to such an establishment, as that their Religion, Laws, and Liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted : — Upon which letters, elections having been accordingly made ; 352 RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES CLAIMED [book m. J-' La.d. 16S9 and thereupon, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Com mons, pursuant to their several letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do, in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for vindicating and asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, declare : — That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by Regal authority without consent of Parliament, is illegal ; — That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws, by Regal Authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal ; — That the Com mission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other Commissions and Courts of the like nature, are illegal and pernicious ; — That levying of money, for or to the use of the Crown, by pretence of Prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time or in any other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal ; — That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such peti tioning are illegal ; — That the raising or keeping a Standing Army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law ; — That the subjects, which are Protestants, may have arms for their defence, suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law ; — That elections of Members of Parliament ought to be free ; — That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parlia ment, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or place out of Parliament ; — That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted ; — That Jurors ought to be duly empannelled and returned, and Jurors which pass upon men in trials of High Treason ought to be freeholders ; — That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons, before conviction, are illegal and void ; — And, that chap. n. ] OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE AND SUPREMACY 353 a.d. 1689J JJJ for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strength ening, and preserving of the laws, Parliament ought to be held frequently. And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the premisses, as their undoubted Rights and Liberties ; and no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings, to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premisses, ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example: — To which demand of their Rights they are particularly encouraged by the Declaration of his Highness the Prince of Orange, as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein.' Having laid a basis for Constitutional Government in this threefold ' whereas,' they then proceed to declare ' the Resolu tion of the Lords and Commons/ having entire confidence 'that the Prince would perfect the deliverance so far ad vanced and would still preserve them from all violation ' of rights, 'that William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, be, and be declared, King and Queen of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the Crown and Royal Dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions, to them the said Prince and Princess during their lives, and the life of the survivor of them ; and that the sole and full exercise of the Royal power be only in, and exercised by, the said Prince of Orange, in the names of the said Prince and Princess, during their joint lives ; and after their deceases the said Crown and Royal Dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions, to be to the heirs of the body of the said Princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body ; and for default of such issue, to the heirs of the body of the said Prince of Orange.' Thereupon, they proceed to 'pray the said Prince and Princess to accept the Crown and Royal Dignity ac cordingly ; ' and they ' abrogate ' the previously existing Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and prescribe the VOL. I. Z 354 THE CROWN OFFERED AND ACCEPTED [book in. JJ^ La.d. 1689 following oaths to be taken by all persons, of whom the former oaths might be required by law, viz. : — Oath of ALLEGIANCE — ' I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to their Majesties, King William and Queen Mary : so help me God.' And the Oath of Supremacy — ' I, A. B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, this damnable doctrine and position, " that Princes excom municated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever." And I do declare that no Foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre eminence, or authority, Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within this realm : so help me God.' 1 This great Constitutional Compact having been thus fully and solemnly read in their hearing, Halifax, the Speaker of the Lords, then tendered the Crown to their Highnesses ' in name of both Houses, the representatives of the Nation;' and the Prince of Orange returned the following charac teristic answer : — ' My Lords and Gentlemen, this is certainly the greatest proof of the trust you have in us that can be given, which is the thing that makes us value it the more ; and we thankfully accept what you have offered to us. And as I had no other intention in coming hither, than to pre serve your Religion, Laws, and Liberties, so you may be sure that I shall endeavour to support them, and shall be willing to concur in anything that shall be for the good of the kingdom, and to do all that is in my power to advance the welfare and glory of the Nation.' 2 Ere that same day closed, 'Garter Principal King of Arms, with other officers concerned in solemnities of that nature/ had four times read the Proclamation of the new King and Queen, first, in presence of ' Lords and Commons 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 1 08-1 11. 2 Ibid. p. m. chap, ii."] KING WILLIAM AND QUEEN MARY 355 A.D. 1689 J ^ JJJ and People' there assembled ; secondly, at Temple Bar ' between the two gates ; ' thirdly, ' in the middle of Cheap- side ; ' and lastly, ' at the Royal Exchange.' 1 And thus the whole Nation was, with all stately ceremony, informed ' that Almighty God in His great mercy had vouchsafed us a miraculous deliverance from Popery and Arbitrary Power;' that our preservation, 'next under God, was due to the resolution and conduct of his Highness, the Prince of Orange ; ' that her Highness, the Princess of Orange, was zealous ' for the Protestant Religion ; ' that the ' Lords and Commons had offered them the Crown' in terms of the Declaration of Rights, and that they had accepted the same accordingly ;' that William and Mary are, with full consent, published and proclaimed to be King and Queen ; and that all due faith and true allegiance are to be paid to them henceforth by all the people of these realms and dominions, 'beseeching God, by whom Kings reign, to bless King William and -Queen Mary, with long and happy years to reign over us.' 2 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. in, 112. 2 Ibid. pp. 112, 113. CHAPTER III WILLIAM'S WISE PROPOSALS THE Convention of 22d January, which was turned into a Parliament on 18th February 1689, and was pro rogued on 27th January 1690, had, properly speaking, nothing to do with concessions to Popery.1 And yet, not only every Parliamentary debate of those fateful twelve months, but every prominent event in the history of the country beyond the walls of Parliament, surged around the Claims of the Papacy, expressed or implied. There is no possibility therefore of understanding this long-drawn conflict of the ages, without picturing vividly to ourselves the steps whereby King William secured, defended, and confirmed our Protestant Religion and our Constitutional Liberties, alike in Parliament and on the battlefield, alike in Ireland and on the Continent of Europe. Hence, in the scenes that immediately follow, the temptation to wander abroad into the heroic pages of the general history of the time, instead of confining ourselves to our own immediate inquiry, is so fascinating, that the continued restraint which we have had to lay upon ourselves has been felt to be positively cruel. But this consolation abides, that what we can only glance at, and pass by, is splendidly and fully depicted on the classic pages of all our greatest historians. On 1 8th February 1689, King William, 'with great 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 118-539. chap, iii."] SALUS POPULI 357 a.d. 1689J •}J' solemnity/ took the throne, and delivered his first Royal message to both Houses of Parliament. It was brief, and soldierly, and practical. The ' condition of his Allies on the Continent/ the ' State of Ireland/ and the ' support of Protest ant Interests at home and abroad/ are its bugle notes, with a much-needed warning against ' slow methods and delays.' 1 The speech was received with ' general applause/ and the Houses immediately set themselves to the discussion of a grand Constitutional question. By what authority did they meet ? Were they truly a Parliament at all ? A bill came from the Lords on the following day, and set the ball a-rolling ; its aim being thus defined by its title : — ' To remove and prevent all questions and disputes concerning the assembling and sitting of this present Parliament.' 2 The debate in the Commons ran to great lengths. Many of the old keen talkers reappear in the arena of strife. Sir Edward Seymour says, ' If you concluded the throne vacant, I am concluded by that/— meaning that a Parliament could not be constitutionally called while the throne was vacant. And, in reference to the warnings about French enemies, he tartly exclaims, 'The King of France has been the Devil and walking ghost in every Parliament ! ' 3 Serjeant Maynard retorts, ' That gentleman cries, Where is the law ? When we can't find it we must have recourse to the law of nature — Salus populi suprema lex esto !' 4 Colonel Birch impatiently urges, ' I remember a debate of this kind forty years ago. . . . From the best of precedents, that of 1660, you are a Parliament. Pray, go on, and read the bill ! '5 Finally, this resolution was carried, nem. con. : — ' That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, now sitting at Westminster, are the two Houses of Parliament' 6 The Convention becomes the Parliament, not only de facto, but dejure. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 118. 2 Ibid. p. 119. 3 Ibid. p. 125. 4 Ibid. p. 128. 6 Ibid. p. 131. 6 Ibid. p. 134. 358 THE KING'S REVENUE [B00K m- 03 Ia.d. 1689 On February 25 th, we still find the Commons vigorously discussing the varied themes suggested by the King's Speech. We get glimpses into the ' State of the Nation/ such as those given by Mr. Howe : — ' the soldiers quartered at Cirencester drink to King William's and Queen Mary's damnation. The Clergy are got into cabals, and would not appear at the Proclamation. I believe the black coats and the red coats to be the grievances of this nation.' * Next day, in a debate on 'the King's Revenue/ which became indeed the very key to the permanence of the Revolution Settlement, and made the House of Commons by-and-bye absolutely the Sovereign Power through its annual control of Supply, the same sharp-tongued Mr. Howe exclaimed : — ¦' One would have the revenue during King James's life, and another during King William's ; but I would make no such leases, only from time to time by Parliament. . . . The Crown is forfeited, and the Lords and Commons offered it as a present to King William. And that they have a right to offer this revenue also as a present to him is my opinion.'2 In vain, before the Grand Committee, on February 27th, Sir John Lowther pleaded, ' that there should be confidence in the King ; ' and Sir Francis Drake, ' to give him the best acknowledgment we can, but without prejudice to the people ; ' and Sir Robert Howard, ' to grant the revenue to the King for years, or for life. . . . When a Popish King has received such testimony of kindness from the Parliament as to have the revenue for life, if a Prince come in to save your Religion and Laws should not have the same confidence, it will be thought a great coldness.' Sir Edward Seymour could make the stinging rejoinder, — ' If King Charles II. had not had that bounty from you, he had never attempted what he had done. We may date our misery from our bounty.' 3 It was finally agreed unanimously that the grants for 1 Hansard's P. II. vol. v. p. 13;. 2 Ibid. p. 142. 3 Ibid. pp. 146-149. chap, in.] ANNUAL SUPPLIES, ANNUAL PARLIAMENTS 359 A.D. 1689J revenue had ' expired/ and that they must be made by Parliament ' anew.' This sorely galled William at the first ; though his statesmanship in course of time saw its Constitu tional value, and became reconciled to it. Hence, when even the next Parliament, so pronouncedly Tory, limited the grant of revenue to ' four years,' instead of voting it to him ' for life,' he bitterly retorted : — ' The gentlemen of England trusted James . . . but will not trust me!'1 At length, the resolution was taken to provide for Supply by an annual vote. That necessitates an annual Parliament. And this one simple expedient has rendered for ever im possible many of the worst usurpations and tyrannies of the past. The power that controls the national purse controls, in the long run, the national history. That power is finally placed in the hands of the duly-elected representatives of the people. And this we owe distinctly and unquestionably to our Pro testant Revolution, and to the Parliaments of 1689 and 1690. In order, however, that King William might have no occasion to doubt their loyalty, they passed on that same 27th February another memorable resolution. A message had been delivered to the Commons ' that James had sailed from Brest with French troops, and was on his way to Ireland.' Whereon they resolved, nem. con.: — 'That the House will stand by and assist the King with their lives and fortunes, in supporting his alliances abroad, in reducing of Ireland, and in defence of the Protestant Religion and laws of the king dom.'2 And on March 8th, said resolution having been duly presented in the form of an address from both Houses, we listen to the King's reply. He assures them he will ' never abuse the confidence ' reposed in him, and never give any Parliament 'cause to distrust' him: — 'It is still my desire as well as my duty to preserve your Religion, Laws, and Liberties, which were the only inducements that brought me into England.' He points out that his Allies are exhausted, 1 Macaulay, ch. xv. 2 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 150. 360 THE DISARMING OF PAPISTS [book in. ° Ia.d. 1689 ' both as to men and money.' He bewails ' the deplorable condition of Ireland, both by the zeal and violence of the Popish Party there, and by the assistance and encouragement they have from France.' He grieves that the burden to be laid on his people must be ' so great/ but declares ' that not otherwise can either Religion or safety be secured.' And he pledges his fidelity in the ringing and soldier-like words : — ' As you so freely offer to hazard all that is dear to you, so I shall as freely expose myself for the support of the Protestant Religion and the safety and honour of the Nation.'1 We suddenly come upon a debate regarding Popery on March 16th, 1689, which interprets for us the spirit of the time and of the Commons. It rages around what is called a 'Bill for Disarming Papists.' Serjeant Maynard, the first speaker, declares : — ' We are so mealy-mouthed and soft- handed to the Papists that it occasions their insolence. I think it fitting that all Papists should resort to their own dwellings, and not depart without licence from the next Justices ; and that those of that Religion bring all their fire arms in, unless for the necessary defence of their houses, to officers appointed. ... I would not imitate their cruelty ; I am far from it. I would let them have their Religion in their private houses ; but no harbouring of Priests and Jesuits.'2 And our sarcastic friend, Mr. Howe, mocking at the futility of mere proclamations, and urging the arrest of justly-suspected persons, asserts, — 'If these gentlemen, the Papists, want paper to stop their guns, they may do it with proclamations !'3 After full discussion, it was at last resolved: — 'That a Bill be brought in for the more speedy convicting and dis arming of Papists.' And as far on as the end of June, Hampden reports William's judicious 'reply' to the Com mons' ' address ' regarding this proposal : — ' That he would 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 163, 164. 2 Ibid. p. 182. 3 Ibid. p. 184. CHAP A.D lp. in.] WILLIAM'S WISE PROPOSALS 36 1 . 1689J use all means he could to secure this kingdom from any danger that might arise from Papists, or reputed Papists, or any other that shall disturb the peace of the Government'1 But on that same day, 16th March, the King appeared in Parliament, and, in presence of both Houses, launched the first of his many great and wise ' proposals ' for the unifying of all Protestants into one harmonious community. In these plans, as they are developed, we shall find ample reasons for admiring his supreme statesmanship, and for contrasting the breadth and sagacity of his mind with the narrowness and intolerance of almost every other leader of that age. And yet we shall learn that even his widest toleration fixed very positive limits to the concessions, which he regarded it as either lawful or safe to propose, in the interests of the Liberty and Independence of the kingdom. In the old Records, this first venture of William's is entitled the ' King's Speech in favour of Dissenters.' He has come to Parliament to pass two bills, whose very designa tions are redolent of the times ; the one ' for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act ' in certain emergencies, and the other 'for annulling the attainder of Lord Russell,' one of the proto-martyrs of the Revolution. He embraces the occasion to remind them of one thing more, ' which will conduce much to our settlement' He is filling up with all expedition 'the vacant offices and places of trust ;' and there is 'a necessity for some law to settle the oaths' to be taken by all such persons. And then he announces his proposal in these words : — ' I recommend it to your care to make a speedy provision for this ; and as I doubt not but you will sufficiently provide against Papists, so I hope you will leave room for the admission of all Protestants that are willing and able to serve!2 The admission of all Protestants, willing and able, to the full and unfettered service of their King and country — that was the first plank in William's plan for ' uniting ' his people 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 330, 370. 2 Ibid. p. 184. 362 THE UNION OF PROTESTANTS [book hi. La.d. 1689 amongst themselves, and for 'strengthening' them against their common enemies. The full drift and meaning of this will be most clearly seen by what immediately transpired in the House of Lords, and how far in this respect William was in advance of his age. A bill was introduced there for ' abrogating the former Oaths/ and appointing ' other oaths in their stead.' On its being read a second time, a Select Committee was 'ordered to draw two clauses ;' the one 'to explain the abrogating ' of the Oaths, and the other ' to take away the necessity of receiving the Sacrament to make a man capable of holding an office.'1 When a clause drawn up in these terms was ' reported/ implying the abolition of the Sacramental Test, the Lords rejected it 'by a great majority!' Thereon a 'Protest' was entered on the Records, signed by nine Peers, the terms of which light up the whole controversy, and make the minds of men glow before us. They protested, ' because a hearty union among Protestants is a greater security to Church and State than any test that can be invented;' because 'the obligation to receive the Sacrament is a test on Protestants rather than on Papists;' and, because, 'the Members of Parliament itself are not obliged to receive the Sacrament in order to enable them to sit in either House.'2 A further attempt was made to insert an alternative clause in the bill, virtually securing the same end, though indirectly. It declared that the Lord's Supper was not to be received 'upon any other account than in obedience to the Holy Institution thereof;' and it relieved persons admitted to public offices from the necessity of receiving the Sacrament according to the form of the Church of England, provided a certificate were delivered of the said persons having (other wise) received the Sacrament, under the hands of a Minister and two other credible persons.' This also was at once rejected ; and six Peers — Oxford 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 196. 2 Ibid. p. 196. chap. III.-] THE BILL OF INDEMNITY 363 A.D. 1689J Mordaunt, Lovelace, Montagu, Wharton, and Paget — entered their ' Reasons of Dissent ' in a document of great interest and high significance. They dissent for these, amongst other causes : — ' It gives great part of the Protestant free-men of England reason to complain of inequality and hard usage ;' it ' deprives the King and kingdom of divers men fit and capable/ neither ' suspected ' nor ' disaffected ;' it ' sets marks of distinction and humiliation ' on men not justly suspected, a thing particularly to be deplored ' in this present con juncture/ which stands in need of 'the united hands and hearts of all Protestants ;' it turns ' the edge of the law upon Protestants and friends of the Government, which was intended against Papists, to exclude them from places of trust as men avowedly dangerous to Religion and Govern ment ;' and, if it be urged still as an effectual test to discover and keep out Papists, then the taking of the Sacrament in those Protestant congregations, where they are members and known, will be at least as effectual to that purpose.' 1 All the argument, as may appear to us now, was on the King's side ; but William learned, with an incipient sense of despair, that prejudice and privilege and passion combined could override reason and baffle his wisest plans. The con tinuance of the Sacramental Test was, by its disuniting of Protestants, a powerful though indirect addition to the forces of Popery and disaffection. Still another weapon was in William's quiver for the cause of unity and concord, and he now prepared to draw it. We must not linger above a moment over it ; but the record of this period would be defective were it not presented, even in view of the limited bearings of our inquiry. On March 25th the King sent a message to both Houses recommending them to prepare for his approval a Bill of Indemnity. His earnest desire was ' to put an end to the guilt, reproach, penalties, and discords/ arising out of 'the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 197. 364 BILL OF COMPREHENSION rBO0K nl- 0 ^ La.d. 1689 disorders of the late times,' and he judges that ' the best way to render this his gracious purpose most extensive and effectual is to pass an Act of Free and General Pardon, Indemnity, and Oblivion.' Of course, he intimates that there must be some ' excep tions/ but he appeals to his Parliament to specify 'such exceptions only as to them shall seem necessary for the vindication of public justice, the safety of their Majesties, and the settlement and welfare of the nation for the future.'1 Alas ! upon these ' exceptions ' the bill went to pieces. End less debates occupied weeks and months. The Commons hungered for revenge on their political enemies of the past, and brought in ' exception ' after ' exception/ till William, in disgust and after nearly a year wasted, cut their palavers short by issuing on his Royal Prerogative an ' Act of Grace,' and taking the subject once for all out of their hands.2 Oh that nations could but enjoy the advantages of a wise Despotism without the perils of its abuse ! Much as William's heart was set upon these measures, and bitterly disappointed at their failure, he did not relinquish almost heroic efforts at once to meet the wishes of Parlia ment and, at the same time, to secure the union of all Protestants in the service of the State. The next line of action was entitled popularly the ' Bill of Comprehension.' Its object was ' to secure such modifications in the Ritual and Constitution of the Church of England that most moderate Dissenters might return within its pale.' On April ist we find it under discussion in the Commons, and on April 4th in the Lords. The bill never had a chance. It was attacked from all quarters. It contained a clause petitioning for the appointment of a ' Commission to revise the Liturgy, Canons, and Constitution,' in view of the proposed alterations. That Commission excluded Laymen, and was to be limited to 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 198. 2 Ibid. pp. 255, 278, 284, 296, 315, 371, 461, 527. chap, in."] CORONATION OF WILLIAM AND MARY 365 a.d. 1 689 J J J 'Divines' of the Church of England. A minority of the Peers vehemently protested against the exclusion of Laymen, 'involving the dangerous assumption that they were not a part of the Church.'1 Finally it issued in this : — William was ' petitioned to call Convocation ' to settle the matter.2 By this time he knew that the request was largely hypo critical, and the bill was no more heard of. Thus died away another of the great and wise thoughts of that large and far-seeing brain. It may be questioned if such an opportunity will ever return. We are, thereby, led up to a memorable date, nth April 1689 — the Coronation Day of King William and Queen Mary. As far back as March 25th, the House resolved itself into a Grand Committee, 'to inspect the Coronation Oath, and consider what alterations or amendments are fit to be made therein.' 3 A lengthy debate arose over retaining or rejecting the words about the Church, ' as it is now established by law,' and inserting such words as these, ' shall be established by law.' Godolphin objected to the change, as if there were an intention to alter Religion : — ' I would have tender consciences come in at the door, and not pull down the rafters of the house to come in at the roof.'4 Somers, on the contrary, argued for the change : — ' Put it " is or shall be " established, and that takes in every man's consent ; though the Constitu tion be as good as possible at the present time, none can be good at all times.' 5 Then on March 28th, the 'Bill for Establishing the Coronation Oath' was read a third time, and another keen debate arose over a ' rider ' proposed by Mr. Pelham. It was a proviso ' that no clause in this Act shall be understood so to bind the Kings or Queens of this Realm as to prevent their giving their Royal Assent to any Bill ... for the taking away or altering of any Form or Ceremony in the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 212-214. 2 Ibid. pp. 217, 218. 3 Ibid. pp. 199, 206. 4 Ibid. p. 205. 5 Ibid. p. 204. 366 THE CORONATION OATH [book in. La.d. 1689 Established Church . . .'* But in the opinion of the majority this proviso was uncalled for and futile, such liberty of action being implied in the very idea of legislative power. It was, therefore, withdrawn ; and the Bill passed into an Act. The Coronation Oath, as then adjusted, after swearing the Sovereign to ' govern according to the statutes in Parlia ment agreed on, and the laws and customs ' of the Kingdom, and to 'cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all judgments,' has the following question at its very heart and eentre : — ' Will you, to the utmost of your power, maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed Religion, as by law established ? ' An amplification of this in another question follows, as to 'the rights and privileges ' that ' do or shall by law appertain to ' the Bishops and Clergy of this Realm, and to the Churches committed to their charge.' And the Sovereign, with hand on Holy Gospels, swears, ' The things which I have here before promised I will perform and keep : so help me God ! ' 2 The Coronation itself was celebrated in Westminster Abbey. Sancroft of Canterbury still refusing to take the Oaths, Compton of London, popularly styled ' the Protestant Bishop,' was in terms of the Act chosen by the King to officiate in his stead. And the Commons, who though they had given the Crown to William had no share in this cere mony, had to be content on that day with a ' seat in the gallery of the Abbey and another in Westminster Hall, and a dinner to be provided for them in the Court of Exchequer.' But on the day following they had a procession of their own, 'walking in full body to the Banqueting-House'3 to congratulate their Majesties. The Speaker, in name of ' the Commons of England,' wished their Majesties ' all the bless ings that ever did attend a crown.' Assured of a full enjoy ment of ' Laws and Liberties/ and of being ' defended ' from 1 Hansard's/'. H. vol. v. p. 208. 2 Ibid. p. 211. 3 Ibid. p. 215. chap, in.] CROWNING OF PROTESTANT REVOLUTION 367 A.D. 1 689 J all enemies, he protests : — ' But that which completes our happiness is the experience we have of your Majesties' con tinual care to maintain the Protestant Religion ; so that we can no longer apprehend any danger of being deprived of that inestimable blessing, either by secret practices or by open violence.' Congratulating first the King and then the Queen, invoking on each separately a special blessing, he soared to a close in the following eloquent strain : — ' May the lustre of both your names so far outshine the glory of your predecessors, that the memory of their greatest actions may be forgotten, and your people no longer date the establish ment of their Laws and Liberties from St. Edward's days, but from the most auspicious reign of King William and Queen Mary ! ' 1 In all this the Right Honourable Henry Powle may have been romancing a little in presence of Royalty. But much more likely he was trying to interpret — and he did truly interpret — the genuine and loyal hearts of all except a mere fraction of the Nation. The crowning of William was the crowning of the Protestant Settlement in Church and State — the crowning of a Protestant Revolution. The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were now re considered by both Houses in the form of a ' Bill of Oaths.' Much time was wasted and many ' conferences ' held over certain 'amendments' by the Lords. Of these the least defensible was an attempt to 'except' the Bishops and Clergy from the necessity of taking said Oaths ; or ' leave it in the power of the King to administer the Oaths, but not force him to do so.' 2 Even when this preposterous amendment was withdrawn, the bill was at length passed with a ' proviso ' by the Lords, which Sir George Treby declared that they • admitted to be contrary to all course and practice of Parliaments.' By it the King was left free ' to allow such of the Clergy as shall 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 216. 2 Ibid. pp. 218-231. 368 THE TOLERATION ACT ["book hi. J La.d. 1689 refuse the Oaths prescribed by this Act, as he shall think fit, not exceeding the number of twelve, an allowance out of their Ecclesiastical benefices for their subsistence, not ex ceeding a third part ; and to continue during his Majesty's pleasure, and no longer.' J By this weak and unprincipled compromise, William was empowered to throw a sop to Sancroft and his Non-jurors, ' to the number of twelve,' to prevent them taking a position of open and active hostility to the Revolution Settlement, As usual, it satisfied neither party. The oaths themselves need not be repeated here, as they have already been quoted in full, as proposed under the Declaration and Claim of Rights (vide p. 353). It was now enacted that they must be taken ' by all from whom they may be lawfully required/ not later than 1st August 1689, on pain of forfeiture and deprivation of office. And as early as May 13th, we find Parliament itself at work, for the House of Commons on that day expelled Sir Henry Monson and Lord Viscount Fanshaw from membership ' for refusing to take the Oaths.' 2 But on May 17th we stumble upon an apparently final discussion on what is styled a ' Bill of Indulgence to Dis senters.'3 This turns out to be none other than the much belauded TOLERATION Act — the next and last of William's weapons for unifying and strengthening Protestantism. His assault on the Sacramental Test for office had failed — it came too early, before the Nation was ripe for it. His dream of comprehension in one vast and united Reformed Church had failed — it came too late, when the Nation had gone too far on other paths to be easily turned back. But the scheme of Toleration was within his grasp ; and, to do all parties full justice, Parliament seems to have been so eager to pass it, that discussions thereanent make a very small show on the Journals of either House. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 235. 2 Ibid. p. 254. 3 Ibid. p. 263. chap, iii."] tts BLOTS AND DEFECTS 369 a.d. 1689J ° * The debate on the 17th May, for instance, turns upon the clause granting ' Indulgence to Quakers,' who will give ' no oath in evidence, but only their Yea or Nay/ declaring themselves bound thus ' according to the Holy Scriptures.' Sir Henry Goodrick declares that 'under this mask you hazard the government both of Church and State.' Colonel Birch appeals thus : — ' These sort of people have been in the shambles these twenty years ; and I never thought they would come so near us as in this " Declaration ; " and now, under a doubtful word, to throw out all that has been done ! ' Sir Thomas Clarges wished to make it ' temporary and pro- bational/ for ' seven years only.' Sir Robert Howard indig nantly protested : — ' This is no new thing. It has been on the anvil these seven years, but without success. It was brought forward in King James's time ; but they could not and durst not perform it. Their Church would never suffer it. And now, in the midst of all this expectation — to dash it with a temporary clause ! ' J Alas, this much applauded Toleration Act, the so-called ' Charter of our Religious Liberties/ is, when looked at with modern eyes, a very disappointing affair ; and, even in the light of that earlier day, is a miserable and poor little starve ling, as compared with William's grander ideas — the Aboli tion of the Test, and the Comprehension of Churches. The Act, leaving unrepealed the statutes requiring attendance at the Church of England and prohibiting attendance at Conventicles, provided the following loophole for 'delin quents : ' — These statutes were no longer to be construed as extending to any person who was at once Loyal and Pro testant ; Loyalty being tested by accepting the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy ; and Protestantism, by subscrib ing the Declaration against Transubstantiation. The most persecuting statutes still remained unrepealed : such as the 'Act of Uniformity/ laying every Dissenting Hansard's H. P. vol. v. pp. 263-266. VOL. I. 2 A 370 POPERY EXCEPTED — WHY? [book in. °' La.d. 1689 Minister, who celebrated the Eucharist without Episcopal ordination, open to a fine of £100; the 'Five-Mile Act/ whereby the most learned and pious Ministers were driven to obscure retreats ; and the ' Conventicle Act/ designed to suppress Dissent and to encourage informers. The most that toleration did was to relax these, under many still galling conditions. Every Dissenting Minister, in order to become ' indulged/ i.e. tolerated, had still to sign the Thirty- Nine Articles, excepting only five which refer to ceremonies, homilies, and orders. And the poor Quaker had to sign three important ' declarations ; ' one on Transubstantiation ; another on fidelity to the Government ; and a third on his Christian belief, as to the divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost, and the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments. Thus, however, though amid glaring defects, for the first time in our history, there was placed on the Statute Book the legal sanction of liberty of Worship and liberty of Conscience. And a very long stride was taken towards the establishment of the fundamental principle that mere theo logical error ought not to be punished by the Civil Magis trate ; save where, under the guise of Religion or theology, it attacks ' the safety and welfare of the State.' But this last idea brings us face to face with the one grand and explicit exception from the Toleration Act, and the reason for the same. It is relevant to our present inquiry to give all possible prominence to the fact, which the Act emphatically declares, that it not only excludes ' all who deny the doctrine of the Trinity/ as set forth in the Articles of the Church of England, from the benefit of its toleration ; but that ' the Legislature did not intend to grant the smallest indulgence to any Papist' The very foundation and existence of the Revolution Settlement im plied that, from the nature of the case, a sincere Papist could not be at once loyal to the Pope and loyal to the King; and Popery was refused toleration, because in its chap, iii."] COLLAPSE OF CONVENTION-PARLIAMENT 37 1 a.d. 1689J 0/ essential principles dangerous to the State, and destructive alike of Civil and Religious Freedom as secured by the Constitution in 1688 and 1689.1 This first session of the Convention Parliament ceases to have almost any further interest for us at present. Whigs and Tories worried each other in endless debates over ' exceptions ' to the Indemnity, which was being transformed, to William's intense disgust, into a ' Bill of Pains and Penal ties on Political Enemies ' rather than a ' Bill of Oblivion.' Occasionally, as on June 1st by a debate regarding the •neglect of relieving Londonderry,'2 and on June 13th another regarding James's ' declaration ' from Dublin Castle,3 we are reminded that the centre of the action is now outside the walls of the English Parliament. On June 28th, King William stirs himself to deliver to both Houses what is described as a 'quickening speech.' He implores them to 'avoid all occasions of disputes and delays, at a time that requires union and vigour in your counsels, upon which the 'preservation of all that is dear to us doth so much depend.' 4 But the Parliament showed badly at this stage of the Revolution crisis ; persisted in irritating and endless ' dis cussions ' and 'conferences' about altogether minor affairs, while the very existence of Parliamentary Institutions in these lands was still hanging in the scales of fate. Had the King shown as little statesmanship in that day as did the Parliament of England, we Would almost to a demonstrable certainty have been thrown back under the yoke of Stuart Popery and Tyranny. Wearied out, and well-nigh hopeless, William prorogued trie first session of the Convention Parliament on August 20th ; and we must perforce turn elsewhere if we would learn how the tides of national life and destiny were flowing during the spring and summer of 1689. 1 Macaulay's History, ch. xi. 2 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 280-284. 8 Ibid. pp. 303, 304. 4 Ibid. pp. 368, 369. CHAPTER IV SCENES OF AGONY AND GLORY A.D. 1689 — 169O THE story upon which this chapter enters everywhere thrills with passionate interest. But we must touch it only in so far as it bears more or less directly upon refusing or conceding the Claims of Popery and of the abettors of Popery. At two points, one in Scotland, the other in Ireland, Protestant and Popish interests met each other in the deadly grips of battle ; and at either point, in the same last week of July 1689, the tide of conflict began to flow in favour of the Protestant Revolution ; and from that day to this the tide has never again decidedly turned towards Popery, despite many strange fluctuations. Our History of Parliamentary concessions to Popery, or refusal and cancelling of the same, cannot be understood apart from these scenes and events ; which, in the fewest possible sentences, we must strive to depict, that they may live before us. In looking across the borders to Scotland, we have to remember that, as far back as Christmas Day in the Revolution year, the West Country Covenanters had begun their rough pastime of ' rabbling the curates ; ' 1 but we need not waste tears or sympathy on them, driven out indeed from their Manses, but ' without loss of life or limb/ when we recall the infernal butcheries of Dalyell and Lag and ' bluidy Clavers,' of which they had been the defenders, and even in 3 Green's 5. H. ch. ix. sect. viii. ; Hume, vol. iii. ch. i. ; Macaulay, ch. xiii. 372 chap. iy.l THE WAGER OF BATTLE 373 a.d. 1689J D/ ° many cases the positive instigators, — thus allying their 'black Prelacy' with James's 'bluidy Popery/ to the eternal loss and shame of Episcopacy in the Kingdom of Scotland. William, at the request and with the advice of the Scotch Lords then in London, and doubtless after due consultation with his great friend, familiarly known as 'Cardinal' Carstairs,1 took it upon himself to summon a ' Convention of the Three Estates' to meet at Edinburgh on 14th March 1689. In the opening prayer, the Bishop of that Diocese devoutly implored the Almighty ' to help and to restore King James ; ' but a few hours showed that the late King's friends were in a hopeless minority. And, on March 15th, Graham of Claverhouse, now Viscount Dundee, was seen to be on the Stirling Road escaping to the North ; and it was known that the cause of Stuart Tyranny and of Popery would now, so far as Scotland was concerned, depend upon the wager of battle. The Convention was put upon its mettle. On the 16th a ' proclamation ' was read from the Market Cross, summoning every Protestant from sixteen to sixty years of age to arm, and be ready to obey the call of his country. In swift succession thereafter the Crown was declared to be 'forfeited/ with only five dissenting voices. A ' Declaration and Claim of Rights ' was drawn up, and a commission of three members — Argyle from the Peers, Sir James Montgomery from the Shires, and Sir John Dalrymple from the Towns — despatched to London to offer the kingdom on these terms to William and Mary. The form of the vote, as carried in the Three Estates, will be interesting to our readers, and will show how the crisis was viewed there, in comparison with the views of the English Convention. The terms are : — ' The Estates of the kingdom of Scotland find and declare that King James vii., being a professed Papist, did assume the Royal power and act as King without ever taking the Oath required by law ; 1 Alias Carstares, or Carstaires. 374 THE CROWN OF SCOTLAND [book in. •"^ La.d. 1689 and had/by the advice of evil and wicked Counsellors, invaded the fundamental Constitution of this kingdom, and altered it from a legal and limited Monarchy to an arbitrary; and despotic power ; and had governed the same to the subversion of the Protestant Religion and violation of the Laws and Liberties of the Nation, inverting all the ends of Government ; whereby he had forfaulted the right of the Crown, and the throne was become vacant.' 1 Along with their ' Declaration and Claim of Rights ' there was interwoven a list of their ' grievances ' to be remedied by new laws ; and in the forefront was the characteristic national declaration, more than Once previously avowed and enforced, that Prelacy as known in Scotland was ' a great and unsupportable grievance and trouble to this nation, and contrary to the inclination of the generality of the people. ever since the Reformation (they having reformed from; Popery by Presbyters), and therefore ought to be abolished.'2 No time was lost, for, on nth May, we find the Scottish Commissions at Whitehall, and William and Mary receiving the Crown of Scotland at their hands. In connection with the taking of the Oath at the ' Inauguration ' there was a little scene, that is chiefly memorable for the light thereby thrown on William's character. There came the words about 'rooting out all heretics and all enemies of the true worship of God.' William, who was repeating the Oath after Argyle, paused and said : — ' I will not lay myself under obligation to be a persecutor.' Argyle replied, as had been previously arranged : — ' Neither the words of the Oath nor the laws of Scotland lay any such obligation upon your Majesty.' ' In that sense, then, I swear,' said William, and called his Lords and gentlemen to witness what had transpired.3 To us, all this may have rather a theatrical look ; but to William it was something highly valuable to secure a solemn x Hume, vol. iii. ch. i. 2 Cunningham's Ch. History of Scotland, ch. xxi. 3 Macaulay, ch xiii. CHAP.iy.] THE PASS OF KILLIECRANKIE 375 a.d. 1689 1 J/ J repudiation of all thought or intention of ' persecution ' on a great historical occasion. Scotland, too, was not altogether beyond the necessity of such a lesson, any more than the England of that age ! On June 18th the 'Convention' in Scotland also was turned into a ' Parliament,' and entered upon the thorny pathway of long-drawn debates. But General Mackay, with the few veterans that William could spare, and with a regiment of invincible though argumentative Cameronians, was on march into the North ; and there the centre of interest really lies. On July 27th Dundee swept down upon them in the Pass of Killiecrankie, and the mighty rush of the undisciplined clans drove the forces of Mackay almost headlong to defeat. Despite Clelland and his Cameronian ' devils,' as Claverhouse called them, whose heroic courage and desperation won the laurels of the day, the victory for Dundee was in all the circumstances worthy of being called 'glorious,' and has ever since fascinated the imagination even of those who curse the cause for which he fought. Alas for that cause ! Its champion died in the hour of his greatest victory. The clans scattered to their hills. And, whatever sentiments of loyalty or romance might still and for generations linger around the Stuart dynasty, the cause of Popery and Tyranny combined fell at Killiecrankie and was slain with the Viscount of Dundee, so far as Scotland is concerned.1 We turn now to Ireland. There, as might be expected, every passion of the Revolution is seen at whitest heat. Before his abdication, James had been deliberately preparing Ireland as a place of refuge for himself and other Papists, in case of any dread emergency. Every Protestant soldier had been discharged from the Army ; the charter of every town had been surrendered to be manipulated in the Popish interest ; every Protestant judge had been expelled from the Bench. Protestants, expecting a massacre, had fled 1 Green's S. II. ch. ix. sect. viii. ; Hume, vol. iii. ch. i. ; Macaulay, ch. xiii. 375 TYRCONNEL'S 'NOW OR NEVER' [book iii. •" La.d. 1689 from South and West over the seas ; and in the North they had drawn together for defence in Enniskillen and Londonderry. The Earl of Tyrconnel, ' lying Dick Talbot/ the Lord Deputy and Lieutenant-General, dallied with William for a few weeks, as if hesitating to which side to turn. At the earnest instigation of young Temple, who afterwards jumped into the Thames in chagrin for what he had done and drowned himself, William sent over one Richard Hamilton to treat with Tyrconnel. He had been a traitor before: Temple believed him to be loyal now, sincerely believed it, — as witness the retribution on himself. But no sooner did Hamilton appear on the scene than Tyrconnel, inflamed by his renegade representations, threw off all reserve and hoisted the flag of King James on Dublin Castle, emblazoned with a fresh motto — ' Now or never ! Now and for ever ! ' That succinctly and memorably expresses the one supreme passion that now burned in the heart of every Papist in the island, — Ireland would be theirs now or never ; Ireland would be theirs now and for ever.1 On March 5th, James sailed from Brest in a French fleet, with French soldiers, and accompanied by a French Ambassador, Avaux, to bring back his kingdoms at once under the King of France and the Pope of Rome. Lewis parted with him in a rather left-handed way, saying: — 'The best thing I can wish is that I may never see you again ! ' To the French King's undying annoyance and disgust that wish was not fulfilled. On March 24th James entered Dublin, having landed at Kinsale twelve days before, and had a gay procession of ' Merry Boys ' and ' Rapparees.' As he entered the capital, Popish Priests came forth bearing the Sacred Host, and poor James fell upon his knees and adored. At the Council, held next morning, Chief Justice Keating 1 Macaulay, ch. xiii. ; Green's 5. H. ch. ix. sect. viii. ; Hume, vol. iii. ch. i. chap. iv. 1 JAMES IN IRELAND 377 and other Protestants were discharged from his service ; while the French Avaux, and other Papists, were sworn in as members. And five 'Proclamations' were issued, from which all might learn the spirit of James's Government. By these — (i) all his subjects were recalled by a certain day, on pain of outlawry and confiscation, and required to join him against the Prince of Orange ; (2) hearty thanks were given to Roman Catholics for their vigilance and fidelity, whose arms were to be retained and laid past till they could be used in James's service ; (3) his subjects were invited to supply his Army with provisions ; (4) the value of the current coin was raised ; and (5) a Parliament was summoned to meet at Dublin on 7th May. 1 Without a moment's further delay James turns towards the North. The Protestant faction must be crushed there at once and for ever. Then all Ireland would lie at his feet, and Scotland would thereby come within his grasp. Humanly speaking, nothing on this earth seemed more likely to happen within the next few weeks. Let us see. Rumour had spread that 1200 armed Papists uncjer the Earl of Antrim were on their way to sack and pillage the strongholds of Protestantism. Amongst others, Dr. George Walker, Rector of Donaghmore, had raised a regiment on King William's side, and placed himself at their head for self-defence. At Longcausey he found himself face to face with an Arm/, and retreated within the walls of Londonderry. Fugitives from every quarter came flocking, till they could number over 30,000 in all, and about 7000 desperate men in arms. It was now the 14th April. The vanguard of James's army was already in sight, led on by the traitor Richard Hamilton. But it was known also that vessels had arrived in the Loch, with two English regiments from William under Cunningham and Richards. So the people still hoped on. 1 Hume, vol. iii. ch. i. 378 THE SIEGE OF 'DERRY ("book in. J La.d. 1689 The English officers arrived, and held a Council of War, along with Colonel Lundy, the Governor of 'Derry. Within a day or two it leaked out that the two regiments were to return to England, that the place was declared to be untenable, that the soldiers of the garrison were to withdraw, and that the inhabitants were advised to capitulate on the most favourable terms. It was found also that the gates were left open at dusk, and that the keys were amissing. Treachery was suspected. Thirteen ' Apprentices ' rushed to the garrison, armed themselves, seized the keys, and hurled-to the. gates in the face of the enemy. A Council of the Citizens was held. Major Baker and Captain Murray called the people to arms ; and George Walker, like a prophet of God, fired them to resist till death. Lundy, creeping out from his chamber, was suffered to escape as a porter with a load of match wood on his back. Within twenty-four hours, every defence was complete. And when, 011 April 19th, a trumpeter at the South Gate summoned them to capitulate and receive James with his French and Popish troops, the representatives of the city, itself at this crisis the representative of Protestantism and Freedom driven to bay, shouted back — ' No Surrender ! ' On the 20th April the city was closely invested and besieged with battering rams by -General Maumont ; on the 23rd he was slain ; and then Richard Hamilton, ¦ taking the full command while James returned to Dublin, settled down to starve it into surrender by a deadly blockade. Leaving these heroic representatives of an Imperial Protestant race, and in order that we may fully realise all that they are fighting for and fighting against, we accompany James for a moment to his Parliament at Dublin. It met on May 12th, and sat for ten weeks. Almost every Member there was Irish and was Papist. In his day of trial, James and his followers had been loud in the cry for ' liberty of Conscience and liberty of Worship.' Now comes the testing chap. iv. 1 THE LONG-DRAWN AGONY 379 A.D. 1689J opportunity, in the light of which all principles stand or fall. The ' Act of Settlement,' whereby all titles to property by Englishmen in Ireland was secured, was swiftly repealed. The authority of the Parliament of England was at once 'annulled.' And one 'Great Act of Attainder' was passed, informing by name and at one-stroke 3000 Protestant citizens of the country, without trial or process of any kind, that, if they did not return and submit themselves before a certain specified day, they would be treated as traitors, and ' hanged, drawn, and quartered.' And, lest there should be any possible doubt as to the spirit that was now in the ascendant, or as to the treatment awaiting them if they did submit and return, it stands on record unimpeachably that the French Ambassador Avaux counselled a general massacre of all the Protestants still lingering in the counties that had submitted to James. To his honour it is written that this last of the Stuart Kings shrank back from an Irish Bartholomew day of slaughter : — ' I cannot be so cruel as to cut their throats, while they live peaceably under my Government' But it may be left to history impartially to answer whether the Frenchman had not more truly learned the lesson of his Church, when he sharply retorted : — ' Mercy to Protestants is cruelty to Catholics! 1 It was to escape tyranny and Popery, of the type here represented, that Londonderry underwent its long agony of one hundred and five days, in the very jaws of death, in the very mouth of Hell. The eye of history ever since fastens on that siege, and glories in that defence. Behind weak walls, defended by a few old guns, unprotected by any ditch or fort, decimated by disease and hunger, dying of such famine that rats caught feeding on the dead were a luxury, soldiers falling at their posts for sheer want of food, and the fever- stricken creeping into cellars to die alone with no one to bury them, — yet the streets rang night 1 Green's S. H. ch. ix. sect. viii. ; Macaulay, ch. xiv. 380 THE DEMON PART OF THE STORY [book iii. J La.d. 1689 and day with one cry, and only one, and that was — ' No Surrender.' On the 15th June General Kirke appeared in the Loch, and it was secretly made known that his fleet bore troops and arms, ammunition and food, and that he had orders to raise the siege. Alas, he too 'retired' to a safe distance, and durst not, either by land or water, face the odds against him. Then came the demon part of the story. General Rosen was sent down from Dublin to supersede Hamilton, and force a surrender. With a heart set on fire of Hell, he, on July 2d, swept every Protestant that could be scoured from the country for thirty miles round, and drove them through mud and mire, through blood and tears, like vermin under the walls of 'Derry. They numbered about four thousand, — tottering age, helpless infancy, and even poor women in pangs of childbirth ; there, for three days, without food or shelter, dying in their misery, — that the hearts of their fellow- Protestants on the walls might fail within them at the sight ! But on these men, to whom there was something dearer than life itself, the effect was exactly the opposite. They erected a gibbet on the walls, and threatened that if these poor people were not dismissed to their homes, they would hang up there in face of the Army every prisoner of war that they had, or could seize ! Weeks of unutterable and indescribable sufferings followed. Grain was being served out to the garrison in mouthfuls. Men were gnawing salted hides to allay their pangs. The last horse in the city had been slaughtered. Two days more, and every particle of provisions even down to tallow would be exhausted ; and men began to whisper about which of them would be first chosen to die for food to the survivors ! But, unknown to the desperate defenders, orders had reached Kirke from England at all hazards to storm the Boom and relieve the city. Volunteers from his fleet at chap, ly."] THE BURSTING OF THE BOOM 581 a.d. 1689J once undertook the task, which during six weeks of horror he had feared to risk. Up the Loch came sailing on July 28th two gallant ships, the Mountjoy commanded by Micaiah Browning of Londonderry, eager to strike a blow for his fellow-countrymen, and the Phoenix commanded by Andrew Douglas, a Scotchman, still more eager to strike for his fellow-Protestants. The mighty and dreaded Boom of iron chains lay across the river from bank to bank, and batteries played upon all that approached it. The Mountjoy dashed against it, rebounded, heeled round, and stuck in the mud. Her master was slain ; and a yell of glee rose from James's Army while the besieged on the walls looked fearfully livid in each others' eyes. The Phosnix, however, dashed bravely through, and bore right on to the city, despite shot and shell. A screen of casks filled with earth had been thrown up at the pier, to protect them from the enemies' guns, and behind that the work of unloading joyfully began. The city was saved ! Bonfires blazed on the walls, and were seen through all the North. The batteries still roared against them for three days, but the city bells rang out defiance to their guns.1 When the 1st August dawned, the camp of the besiegers was a smoking ruin, and the army of King James was on its way to Strabane. There they learned that three days after the bursting of the Boom at 'Derry, Wolseley had led the Enniskilleners to a glorious victory at Newton Butler, and had routed the forces of Macarthy, in the face of terrible odds. Panic seized the retreating army from Londonderry; and, striking tents, and throwing away military stores, they fled on the road to Charlemont Dublin heard the news in great consternation. James was accused of muttering about flight to the Continent. Nay, sire, twelve months may yet elapse before that is necessary. Still, even James could scarcely but instinctively feel that nothing in Popery and 1 Macaulay, ch. xiii. ; Green's S. H. ch. ix. sect. viii. ; Hume, vol. iii. ch. i 382 AT WAR WITH FRANCE [book III. J La.d. 1689 Tyranny could evoke any enthusiasm to match the fire of faith and of loyalty that had been kindled by the Prince of Orange in defence of Protestantism and Liberty. The defence of 'Derry was the achievement of a race and of a religion that deserve to prevail. As far back as May 21st, William had deliberately declared war against France, the Commons having appealed to him a month before to do so, while Sir Thomas Clarges thus characterised the ferocity of Lewis : — ' That most Christian Turk, who ravages all Christians, and makes war more barbarously than the Turks themselves.' 2 Skirmishing had been already going on on the high seas ; and the House had tendered its thanks to Admiral Herbert for the victory of Bantry Bay ; rather a drawn battle, where the French also claimed the victory. The good news had been waftod from 'Derry and from Killiecrankie ; though James still ruled as King de facto over all Ireland except Ulster. And the month of November had been fixed upon for a sort of Council of War at the Hague, amongst all the European Allies now in the field against that most Christian Turk, the King of France and his abettors.2 Amidst these surroundings, William once more summoned his Parliament to Westminster, for 19th October 1689. He manifestly looked forward to this second session of the Convention Parliament in anything but a cheerful mood. The broils of the past would in all likelihood be renewed, and his heart sank at the prospect. On this occasion, he therefore trusted no Minister or Counsellor, but wrote out his opening speech ' with his own hand, in the French language, and had it translated into English.'3 Bewailing 'this greatest misfortune that in the beginning of his reign he had to ask such large Supplies,' he frankly reminds them that these expenditures are for ' wars, not of vain ambition, but from the necessity of opposing those who have so visibly discovered 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 234, 266. 2 Ibid. p. 266. 3 Ibid. p. 402. chap, iv."] a FOOLISH PARLIAMENT 383 A.D. 1689J ° J their designs of destroying both our Religion and our Liber ties ; . . . and not only your Liberties, but the Protestant Religion in general ; . . . for the defence whereof I am ready again to venture my life.' He appeals to them to do ' what they think fit towards the charges of the war for next year without delay.' His one aim is ' a lasting and honourable peace/ whereby his subjects maybe freed from 'a lingering war/ towards all which, the surest means is a 'vigorous attack ' upon their enemies ; for which due provision must be made 'in proper season and without confusion.' He longs for the day when, the minds of his good subjects being quieted by the Indemnity and by Peace, ' we may all unani mously concur to promote the honour and the welfare of the kingdom.' x The old chronicler says that William's speech was re ceived ' with universal applause.' We shall soon see how far the Parliament shared the wisdom of the King. It was all very well, on the first day of their reassembling, after a brief prorogation of forty-eight hours, to resolve, nem. con., 'that they would stand by and assist his Majesty in reducing Ireland, and joining with his Allies abroad in a vigorous prosecution of a war against France.'2 But why this rushing headlong again, all through November and December, into these endless palavers on minor affairs, indirectly baffling every good and wise intention of the King ? First came the prosecution of the half-lunatic Earls of Peterborough and Salisbury, 'for departing from their allegiance, and being reconciled to the Church of Rome.'3 Then followed eager squabbling about ' miscarriages ' in the victualling of Army and navy, in order to get the knife into political opponents. 4 A great field-day was held also over the reported return to London of the exiled Edmund Ludlow, one of the Cromwell Generals, not yet to be forgiven for having signed the death- 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 403, 404. 2 Ibid. p. 405. 3 Ibid. p. 406. 4 Ibid. p. 407-411. 384 SARAH JENNINGS AND THE PRINCESS [book m. J ^ J La.d. 1689 warrant of Charles ; but permitted again to escape, before any ' proclamation ' could touch him, back to his refuge at Vevey on the Lake of Geneva, where he died in 1693, seventy- three years of age, — and justly honoured in that land of freedom.1 Time was even wasted over the ' Bill of Attainder ' against the detested Jeffreys, already dead on 18th April last in the Tower, at the incredibly early age of forty-one ; dying of brandy, and declaring in disgust, that 'all his cruelty in the West had not come up to the severity which King James expected of him!'2 Days were exhausted over the defalcations of Commissary Shales, purveyor-general to the army, 'notoriously known to be Popishly affected,' and who had so criminally and villainously mismanaged the provisions that Colonel Birch declared : — ' Another such year's war will make an end of you ! ' 3 Miserable intrigues divided parties about the ' settlement of a provision ' for Princess Anne, fomented by the Duchess of Marlborough, — that Sarah Jennings who ruled her husband John Churchill, the great soldier, as a cat rules a helpless mouse,.when it tosses it irom paw to paw and delights to hear it squeal. She dominated also the weaker spirit of the Princess Anne so as to make her jump to whatever string she pulled, familiarly calling her ' Mrs. Morley/ and her husband, Prince George of Denmark, ' Mr. Morley ; ' while the Princess was taught 'in this grotesque friendship' to address Churchill and his audacious wife as ' Mr. and Mrs. Freeman ; ' a name of which Duchess Sarah boasted ' as peculiarly suited to the frankness and boldness of her character.'4 More apology could indeed be made for the time spent on the ' State of Ireland ' and the ' State of the Nation ; ' nor is it easy to sympathise with Mr. Howe, who mocks at such discussion of details, as ' little things which are beneath us/ 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 412. 2 Ibid. pp. 414, 415. 3 Ibid. pp. 430, 453, 462. 4 Ibid. pp. 492, 500 ; Macaulay, ch. xv. chap. iy."] GEORGE WALKER OF LONDONDERRY 385 a.d. 1 689 J J D saying in his usual incisive style : — ' I do not like shooting cannon at sparrows ! ' 1 Nor can any one grudge that 19th November, when Dr. George Walker was brought into the House, to receive from the Speaker the thanks of the Nation for his share in ' the gallant defence of Londonderry.'2 He received all modestly, and protested for himself and his fellow- Protestants that they would be found ' at all times ready with their lives to maintain the Protestant Religion and a Protestant Govern ment.' 2 But, for once, we keenly respond to the stinging rejoinder of our old friend Mr. Howe, when on December 14th, he wishes to cut short a fruitless wrangle on the ' State of the Nation/ and exclaims : — ' The worst state of the nation is to throw " Fanatic " and " Papist " at one another's heads. . . . Secure your own Government from King James's coming in again, with Popery at his heels, and the French King riding on his back.'3 Or, a second time, when on December 21st, Hampden the younger brought in a wild ' Address ' on the same subject, proposed to be sent to the King, of which Serjeant Wogan said, 'It is not an address: it is a libel;' and regarding which, Mr. Howe made the sarcastic speech, ' Pray let that Address lie on the table, till it falls under the table : that is the best use you can make of it ! ' 4 This Parliament need not detain us further, except to record one act of supreme wisdom which it completed and passed, the BILL OF RIGHTS ; and one act of supreme folly which it tried to pass, the CORPORATION Bill, amidst the disgrace of which it was dissolved, and came to a dishonour able end. Ever since the Convention was turned into a Parliament, there had lain before it the important Constitutional necessity of changing the Declaration or Claims of Rights into a Bill, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 430. 2 Ibid. pp. 443, 444. 8 Ibid. pp. 473-476. 4 Ibid. pp. 502-507. VOL. I. 2 B 386 BILL OF RIGHTS AND SUCCESSION ["book in. ° La.d. 1689 and passing it as a Parliamentary statute. As early as May 8th, we come across it under the name of the ' Bill of Rights and Succession' — indicating by its second title that the question of the Succession to the Throne was the bone of contention. Godolphin argued for a 'proviso/ that ' nothing in this Act is intended ... to prejudice the right of any Protestant Prince or Princess in their hereditary succession to the Im perial Crown of these realms.' That was occasioned by the Act limiting the succession to King William, Queen Mary, the Princess Anne, and their heirs, without reference to ' where the Crown would go next, if all these died without issue.' Treby answered : — ' This bill leaves the descent of the Crown to the common law, after the persons you have named in entail.' Hampden, senior, added : — ' The bill provides against all Popish successors, and now your proviso would do it anew.' 1 Somers held that ' there could be no hurt in wholly leaving out this proviso/ — which was accordingly done. On June 19th we find this subject again on the anvil. At William's suggestion, Bishop Burnet of Salisbury had introduced an amendment in the Lords, that, failing lawful heirs of William, Mary, and Anne, ' the Crown should descend upon an undoubted Protestant, Sophia, Duchess of Brunswick Lunenburg, grand-daughter of James I., and daughter of Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia.' Sir John Lowther objected in the Commons : — ' This looks like a perpetuity. . . . The Princess of Hanover may turn Catholic' Boscawen replied : — ' Though he be a Papist in his heart, yet if he take the Oaths he may be King. . . . The little Prince of Wales, now beyond the sea, may be called in.' Sir Thomas Lee urged for a decision: — 'The bill has lain too long already, and shamefully too long upon the table/ 2 But as neither party would give way, the bill was dropped for that session, — the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 249-253. 1 Ibid. p. 339-341. chap, iv.l THE PASSING OF THE ACT 387 a.d. 1 689 J J ' more readily, perhaps, as a little Prince was born to Anne on July 27th, to be known as 'the Duke of Gloucester.' 1 In the next session, on November 6th, we find ourselves present at ' the third reading of an engrossed Bill for estab lishing the Rights of the Subject' Sir Robert Seymour is exercised about 'the power of dispensing' still vested in the King : — ' If that be admitted, all the rest is nothing.' And Sir Edward Hussey 'hears of no test to the incoming King to distinguish him from a Papist ; ' and asks, — ' Must the muzzle be set upon the King, only when the Council please ? ' 2 But, notwithstanding all, the bill passed at last nem. con., and was returned to the Lords. On December 14th, we find the Upper House putting the final touches to this greatest of all our modern Parliamentary Statutes. And it is very pertinent to our present inquiry to note that their special anxiety was, — 'considering how far King James had gone towards introducing the Popish Religion into the Nation, to prevent the like for the future.' 3 Finally, on 16th December 1689, we find the King present in the House of Peers, and the Speaker of the Commons asking him to pass the bill into an Act in these historical words : — ' May it please your Majesty, your dutiful and loyal Subjects . . . have likewise agreed upon a bill for declaring of their Rights and Liberties, which were so notoriously violated in the late reign ; humbly desiring your Majesty to give life to it by the Royal Assent, that so it may remain not only as a security to them from the like attempts hereafter, but be a lasting monument to all posterity of what they owe to your Majesty for their deliverance.' 4 And so an ' Act declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and settling the Succession of the Crown! became part and parcel of our British Constitutional Law. This famous ' Bill of Rights ' thus connects itself, in the 1 Macaulay, ch. xiv. 2 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 411, 412. 3 Ibid. pp. 481, 482. 4 Ibid. p. 483. 388 ANALYSIS OF BILL OF RIGHTS [book m. La.d. 1689 preliminary sentence, with the previous ' Declaration of Rights : ' — ' Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully and fully and freely representing all the Estates of the People of this realm, did, upon the 13th February in the year of our Lord 1688, present unto their Majesties-, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain Declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following : ' x (and then is taken in the Declara tion in full, with the oaths, as given in preceding chapter, vide pp. 350-4). Thereafter the bill proceeds to add several declaratory and defining clauses, some of which are merely formal, others are of vast and permanent value. Clause 4 refers to their Majesties' acceptance of the Crown ' according to the resolu tion and desire of the said Lords and Commons ;' Clause 5, to the continuance of the Convention as a Parliament ' for the settlement of the Religion, Laws, and Liberties of this kingdom ; ' Clause 6, to the prayer for an enactment setting forth that the claims in the Declaration are ' the true, ancient, and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the people of this kingdom ;' Clause 7, to the Abdication of James and the Accession ' by the laws of this realm ' of 'our Sovereign Liege Lord and Lady/ William and Mary; Clause 8, to the limitation of the sovereignty (a) to his Majesty, 'in the names of both their Majesties during their joint lives/ (b) to 'the heirs of the body of her Majesty/ after their 'deceases/ (c) to ' her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body/ and (d) to ' the heirs of the body of his said Majesty.' But Clause 9 is of such vital importance to our present theme that it must be here given in full: — 'And whereas, it has been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 483-486. chap, iy.-l THE PROTESTANT CLAUSE 389 A.D. 1689J safety and welfare of this Protestant Kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince, or by any King or Queen marrying a Papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted that all and every person and persons, that is, are, or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or CHURCH of Rome, or shall profess the Popish Religion, or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded, and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and Government of this realm and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise any Regal power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same ; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance ; and the said Crown and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being PROTESTANTS as should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion, or professing or marrying as aforesaid, were naturally dead.'1 And, in order to make the evasion of the statute as nearly as practicable for ever impossible, — Clause 10 enjoins every King and Queen of this Realm for the future to 'make, subscribe, and audibly repeat/ either on first day of meeting of first Parliament or on Coronation day, or, if under twelve years at accession, then on first day of first Parliament after attaining that age, ' the Declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles 11., intituled, "An Act for the more effectual preserving the King's person and Government by disabling of Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament," ' — that is, what we already know familiarly as the ' Declaration ' against the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the renunciation of which was regarded as essentially the renunciation of Popery itself. 'All which Claims/ according to Clause n, are 'declared 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 486, 487. 390 DISABILITIES NOT RELIGIOUS [book iii. J* La.d. 1689 enacted, and established/ to ' stand, remain, and be the law of this realm for ever! As has been pointed out ever since by all our classic historians, under the Bill of Rights the absolute Sovereignty of the People, through their Parliamentary representatives, was at length statutorily recognised. The Monarchy was restored to its original and Constitutional character, as limited by the laws of the realm — a character which, under Tudors and Stuarts, it had almost entirely lost. The Crown was now the gift of Parliament ; and the Succession depended neither upon Divine right, nor even upon hereditary right, independently of the laws, but absolutely upon Acts of Parliament — the Bill of Rights, and afterwards the Act of Settlement — every Sovereignty since in this land being, therefore, the direct creation of the People's will expressed through Parliamentary representatives.1 But general historians have not so strongly emphasised as we think ought to be done, the conspicuous fact that these Constitutional Liberties were won only by a hand-to- hand struggle to the death with the Claims of Popery. Nor can it be truly said, in any ordinary sense of words, that the disabilities enacted against Papists in that day were ' religious disabilities.' Their so-called ' religious ' claims were ' found by experience ' to have ' political ' and ' civil ' bearings. And a Papist was excluded or politically ' incapacitated/ not for his religious beliefs or his idolatrous worship, however detested ; but directly and expressly accord ing to the memorable terms of the Bill of Rights for the ' Safety and Welfare ' of this Protestant Kingdom. In all the conflicts and controversies that are as yet to pass in review,it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of remem bering and duly valuing those great historical and statutory words : the ' Safety and Welfare' of this Kingdom. This effort seems to have exhausted all the wisdom of 1 Green's 5. H. ch. ix. sect. viii. pp. 672-674. chap A, iap. iv.l THE CORPORATION BILL 39 1 d. 1690J the Convention Parliament, and the next step they took sank them in the mire of partisan folly. A bill was before the House for restoring to Corporations the ' Rights and Liberties of the Charters/ which they had surrendered during the reigns of Charles and James. Members took for granted that it would be unanimously accepted, and had scattered over all England for their Christmas and New Year festivals. But, on 2d January 1690, when Somers brought in the report, Sacheverell moved an additional clause — ' incapacitating for seven years ' every functionary who had in any way been a party to the surrender of these Charters. And Howard enforced this by another clause, fining all who disregarded this limitation in a sum of £500, and 'incapacitating them for life.'1 This was carried, and the third reading of the bill fixed for 10th January. It began to dawn upon the country what these clauses implied. They ' proscribed ' every Mayor, Recorder, Sheriff, Common Councillor, Town Clerk, Magistrate, or subordinate, who had held office in any Corporation during all these troublous years. Probably one-half of all the gentlemen of England, who had substance enough and standing enough to be interested in public affairs, would at one stroke have been banished from the service of their country for seven years, being violently thrust away from William's side and perforce converted into enemies. A storm burst over the face of English public life, such as has been witnessed rarely even in great Revolutions. Couriers on foaming horses spurred madly along every highway. Members leaped up from their feasts cursing the Whigs at Westminster, and drove through mud and snow and rain, panting to reach London before the 10th.2 The King regarded the proposal in all its naked madness with a sense of despair that, for the first time, almost unmanned him. Unknown to his Queen or Council, he 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 508. 2 Macaulay, ch. xv. 392 WHIG REVENGE BAFFLED [book hi. La.d. 1690 completed preparations for his ' retirai ' to the Continent. The acceptance of the bill would mean a fatal breach with the Tories, the conversion of every man of them into Jacobites, and the throwing of all power for seven years into the hands of the most revengeful and bloodthirsty of the Whigs. The rejection of the bill, on the other hand, meant a breach with the Whigs ; the very men who had given him the throne, and his falling back into the hands of the Tories, the avowed enemies of the Revolution Settlement. Well might William despair of this Parliament. That was their answer to all his urgent appeals for ' quickening the In demnity,'1 — an insane proposal to proscribe half the Nation for seven years ! Amid these white-heated passions the debate was resumed on January 10th. The sitting lasted fourteen hours, and almost every great Parliamentary speaker of the age took part in the conflict. At length the vote was taken ; the better sense of the House triumphed ; and the Clerk ' tore away from the parchment the odious clauses of Sacheverell and Howard.' The King sat at his palace in Kensington ' far after midnight, waiting for the news/ — while his troubled brain revolved in solitude the problems of the Empire. Thirteen days pass by, and we find the Lords next dabbling amongst the clauses of the same bill, striking out from its first enacting sentence the words referring to the surrender of Charters by Corporations, — that such surrenders 'be declared, and were, and are illegal.'2 Nine Peers entered their ' Protest ' under several heads, the third one of which deserves our notice here : — ' The surrenders . . . being for the intent and purpose of returning such Parliament-men whom the King should appoint, was for the subversion of the Laws and Liberties of England, and the introducing of Popery and Arbitrary Government ; and the putting out of these words seems to be the justifying of the most horrid 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. pp. 508-516. 2 Ibid. pp. 536, 537, chap. iv. "I WILLIAM'S FINAL RESOLUTION 333 a.d. 1690J J*J action that King James was guilty of during his reign ; and, we humbly conceive, a denying the chiefest grievance men tioned in King William's Declaration when he was Prince, and the greatest inducement for the people taking up arms in defence of their Liberties and Properties and Protestant Religion, and the establishing this King upon the throne.'1 There you have the spirit of that Parliament focussed on this single burning point, — the majority of the Lords refusing to declare a thing even ' illegal/ for which the minority of the Commons declared that all who had any share in it ought to be ostracised for ' seven years ' ! William summoned his Privy Councillors, and announced his determination to retire from the Government and return to the Continent. He would leave to them Queen Mary. She was 'one of themselves.'2 Perchance they would sacrifice more for her sake than they seemed prepared to do for all his appeals. The convoy was waiting, and he would at once withdraw ! The Ministers stared dumbfounded. At last they burst into passionate entreaties. Whig and Tory began to realise the brink to which their furious factions had driven them. They mingled 'even their tears'3 together, while imploring the King not to abandon them and their country. William slowly and somewhat sullenly relented ; but only to make the announcement of another decision, from which nothing could or would deter him. He was resolved that, if he stayed here at all, he would be the only King in these islands. He had determined, therefore, ' to go in person to Ireland/ to meet James face to face on the field of battle, and sword in hand to win or lose the wager of Empire. His soldier-eye saw that progress was impossible, while a rival king was ruling in Ireland ; that Popery and Tyranny must be crushed there, before he could truly rule at home, or effectually 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 538. 2 Ibid. p. 537. 3 Macaulay, ch. xv. 394 IRELAND MUST BE RECOVERED [book m. La.d. 1690 interfere on the Continent. This resolution exploded like a bombshell among his Parliamentary tormentors. The Tories opposed his going, for King William was a formidable and victorious captain, likely enough to extinguish James and bury all their Jacobite hopes. The Whigs opposed his going, anticipating with terror that the rigours of the climate or the chances of war might deprive them of their head whose value they knew, though they had so cruelly badgered him. The King discounted their alarms, and savagely growled : — ' The slave-masters are afraid lest their slave should be rendered unfit for their drudgery ! ' William hears that both parties are uniting in an 'Address ' from each of the Houses, dissuading him from going, and protesting solemnly against it. He swiftly makes up his mind to prevent all such appeals. He appears on January 27th, arid ' announces his resolution/ and at the same time, prorogues the Parliament. He is ' sensibly afflicted ' to see his good people burthened with such heavy taxes. He is convinced that ' the only means to ease them is the speedy recovery of Ireland.' ' I am resolved/ says he, ' to go thither in person, and, with the blessing of God Almighty, endeavour to reduce that kingdom. ... As I have already ventured my life for the preservation of the Religion, Laws, and Liberties of this Nation, so I am now willing again to expose it to secure you the quiet enjoyment of them.' x Preparations must be made for the early spring ; and that he may have ' the more leisure' to apply himself thereto, he has thought it 'con venient to put an end to their present session ! ' The Tories shouted with joy, for they knew that a ' dis solution' and a new 'election' were bound to follow. The Whigs were discomfited and chagrined, like men who had thrown away grand opportunities that would never return to them. William, says Macaulay, might be pardoned if he felt some little vindicative pleasure in annoying them. ' I saw/ 1 Hansard's P. If. vol. v. p. 539. chap, iv."] CHARACTER OF CONVENTION-PARLIAMENT 395 a.d. 1690J %J*J wrote the King next day, ' faces an ell long : I saw some of those men change colour twenty times ! ' 1 Thus went out the Convention-Parliament of the Revolu tion Settlement — a Parliament which did at once some of the greatest and some of the pettiest things ever done by any Parliament in the history of our British race. 1 Macaulay, ch. xv. CHAPTER V THE YEAR OF BOYNE WATER A.D. 1690 MANY easy-going readers talk of the ' Revolution of 1688/ as if the glorious work then entered upon had been instantaneously crowned and secured. They forget, or are ignorant of the fact, that for ten eventful years William wrestled in death-grips to defend and consolidate the Revolution Settlement against France and all the European abettors of the Papacy : Lewis on the one hand represent ing and fighting for the Stuarts with Popery and Arbitrary Power in their train ; William, on the other, at the head of his Continental Allies, standing forth as the champion of Protestantism and Constitutional Freedom. There was no moment in all those years, till the Peace of Ryswick, 1697, when the cause of National Liberty was not in dread peril. A single false step on the part of William, or the failure of his hand for one moment at the helm of affairs, would have wrecked the happy settlement, for which genera tions of men had struggled and suffered. To him these years were one prolonged martyrdom in the service of Protestantism and Freedom. It is simply impossible to understand our history, much more to estimate duly the evils we have escaped and the imperishable glory of our deliverer, without forming some lifelike picture of those fateful years of attack and consolidation and defence. On 6th February 1690, the Convention-Parliament was 396 chap. v. -] EXPULSION OF THE SPEAKER 397 A.D. 169O-J Jy/ dissolved, and the Nation found itself plunging amidst the ferment of a General Election, embroiled by fierce party passions.1 Fiery pamphlets became the order of the day, in which such nicknames as Whig and Tory, Jacobite and Republican, Fanatic and Atheist, took the place of argument. In London the Tories carried everything before them. So manifest was the reaction that, two days before the meeting of Parliament, William rearranged his Treasury Board, intro ducing into it 'two conformable Whigs and two as conformable Tories.' The King, as all Kings before him, still appointed his own Ministers, not as the Executive of the Parliament — that came at a later day — but as his personal servants. It seemed then the height of wisdom to choose them equally, or nearly so, from the opposing parties, instead of all from one party ; and Burnet says, referring to this occasion, — ' Whig and Tory were now equally mixed ; and both studied to court the King by making advances upon the money bills.'2 This second Parliament of William and Mary met on 20th March 1690. It sat through six sessions, and was finally dissolved in October 1695.3 Sir John Trevor was chosen Speaker, and is credited with introducing ' the practice of buying off men.' If so, he was ' hoist with his own petard ; ' for in March 1694, we find the House expelling him for receiving a bribe of one thousand guineas for the passing of the 'Orphan Bill/4 and putting Mr. Paul Foley into the chair. The King's Speech announced his resolution of going into Ireland, and declared ' the absolute necessity for a speedy reduction of that kingdom/ He appealed for their assist ance to prosecute that war 'with speed and rigour.' He recurred to the subject of settlement of the Revenue, and, not without a touch of soreness, expressed the hope that they would ' show as much regard for the honour and dignity 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 542. 2 Ibid. p. 541. 3 Ibid. pp. 541-957. 4 Ibid. pp. 901-910. 398 UNION WITH SCOTLAND ["book in. La.d. 1690 of Monarchy ' in his hands, as they had lately shown to others ! Then, gently reflecting upon the time already wasted in the previous Parliament on debates regarding his ' Bill of Indemnity for the composing of all Differences/ he announced that he would spare their time by issuing a ' Royal Act of Grace/ excepting ' some few persons ' only, — thus manifesting at once his 'dislike of crimes and his readiness to protect all who were peaceably and loyally disposed.' It was in this speech also that, for the first time, he called attention to the subject of ' Union with Scotland/ asking them to nominate Commissioners to confer with those already appointed there, and expressing a hope that terms might be arranged ' for the benefit and honour of both nations.' (It may here be noted that in his last Parliament, 1702, a few days before his death, he returned to this same question with great warmth,— recalling this early commendation of the proposal, and declaring 'that it would be a peculiar felicity, if during his reign some happy expedient for making both kingdoms into one might take place ; and that he was earnestly desirous that some Treaty for that purpose might immediately be set on foot.' ) 1 He warned them, finally, that the session must be short, owing to his journey into Ireland, laconically observing, — ' We must not be engaged in debates when our enemies shall be in the field.' 2 The first great business of the session was the settling of the Revenue, and the second was the voting of a special Supply for the oncarrying of the war. Most interesting Constitutional problems were thrashed out in the debates, and they sparkle with points of light, but we must perforce only touch them and pass on. Should the Revenue be ' for life ' or only for a limited * Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 134 1. 2 Ibid. p. 549. chap. v. "] THE KING'S REVENUE 399 A.D. 1690J number of years ? Should the Supply be voted ' for years,' or only ' from year to year ' ? These were the questions discussed ; and the issues at stake are deeper than may at first appear. ' What/ asked Sir Edmund Jennings, ' will neighbour Princes say, if we do not by this Prince as we have done by the former ?' x Mr. Ettrick scornfully strikes in, — ' Whether will you support the King or keep him as it were on board-wages ? ' 2 Sir John Thompson lets the cat out of the bag by exclaiming, — ' The revenue, if for life, would keep a Standing Army of thirty thousand men. ... I would be loth to see so many Foreigners in England in times of peace.'3 Colonel Austen reveals another sore when he argues, — ' Granting it for life will prevent ill Ministers from being called in question ; you could never reach them.' 4 And Sir Joseph Williamson clinches the plea by this stroke of political wisdom; — ' The King's necessity will bring the King to the people, and the people to the King ; ' i. e. they should then have ' frequent Parliaments/ — the cry of all parties in that age.6 One smiles, amidst all these dry-as-dust pages, to hear Sir Charles Sedley complain that while ' some wallow in wealth and place, others have to pay away a fourth part of their revenue, and country gentlemen are shot through and through with taxes ! ' 6 Also to hear Colonel Granville retort on Sir John Lowther, when he proposes a vote of one and a half million, — 'Money motions come best from rich mouths.' 7 Yet, after all, considering the burdens that William had to face, and the manifestly suspicious temper of his masters in the House of Commons, few readers will withhold from the King a large degree of sympathy, when, comparing the virtues of Commonwealths and of Monarchies, he says to Burnet, glancing severely at his own Parliaments: — 'I am 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 553. 2 Ibid. p. 558. 8 Ibid. p. 559. 4 Ibid. p. 560. 6 Ibid. p. 560. « Ibid. p. 562. 7 Hid. p. 568. 40O BILLS OF RECOGNITION AND ABJURATION [book hi. La.d. 1690 sure that the worst of all Governments- is that of a King without treasure and without power/ x Next in importance came the ' Recognition Bill.' Technical doubts as to the legality of the last Parliament, ' not called by writ in due form of law/ still bothered certain minds. They hungered for another Act, ' recognising their now Majesties to be by the laws of the realm our rightful and lawful liege Lord and Lady, King and Queen of these realms.' 2 Godolphin acutely retorted that it was ' dangerous to recognise a Government upon such terms as to endanger the Government. ... It looks as if the case of the kingdom were like the gentleman that rode over Rochester Bridge by a single plank, and was so struck with astonishment after wards, that he fell down dead! '3 But Somers, then Solicitor- General, ended all controversy by the at once profound yet perfectly commonplace declaration, — that ' if the Convention were not a legal Parliament, then they who were there met, and who had taken the Oaths enacted by that Parliament, were guilty of High Treason/ 4 Others, again, were exercised over the 'Bill for Abjuration' of the late King James. It was proposed that ' all persons in any employment or trust, Ecclesiastical, Civil, or Military, shall be obliged to take the Oath of Abjuration ... on pain of being committed without bail or mainprize.'5 By many, even strong friends of the King, and apparently by the King himself at this time (though not twelve years hereafter), this was keenly opposed. Lord Digby retorted : — 'The foundation of our Government is the Bill of Rights, where the King promises to his Parliament, and we swear fealty to him.' Mr. Cary sententiously added : — ' Oaths lose their value when they lose their necessity.' 6 Lord Falkland declared that such a bill would be 'the destruction of the Government/ their enemies at home being 'too many to be 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 548. 2 Ibid. p. 574. 3 Ibid. p. 585. 1 Ibid. p. 585. 6. Ibid. p. 595. 6 Ibid. p. 595. chap. v. ] JACOBITE AND POPERY LAWS 401 A.D. 1690I provoked.' Sir Thomas Clarges insisted : — ' Where you put a buttress, there the building is weak ! What say the Jesuits ? — " Let them alone. They will fall out among them selves, and King James will come in." Nothing will tend more to bring in King James than this bill.' 1 The House, by 192 against 165, refused to entertain it. Now much of this would scarcely be pertinent to our present inquiry, were it not made conspicuous at every step that Popery is the hinge on which all these questions ultimately turn. For instance, the very Tories, who had by their majority rejected the Abjuration proposal, immediately came before the House with a ' Bill for suspending the Habeas Corpus, and securing the Government.'2 Power was to be 'granted to the Crown for some months to commit persons for treasonable correspondence with the late King James ; ' and that ' without bail.' Colonel Gran ville said : — ' The business of the day is to fortify our selves against our enemies ; that Papists give security to the Government ; and that Protestants do not go about the streets to corrupt people against the Govern ment' And then he moved 'for a test against King James.' s Finally, they carried the following severe Resolution, nem. con., whereby we see deep into the inner workings of the time, viz. : — ' That all Papists, or reputed Papists, be obliged forthwith to repair to, and continue at, their re spective dwellings ; and not to depart from them above a. distance of . . . miles without licence ; and that if they be. found at a greater distance, they be taken to be Papists convict, to all intents and purposes whatsoever. . . . Further, that a Test or Declaration of fidelity to the Government under their present Majesties, against the late King James and all his adherents, and all other enemies to the present Government, as it is now established in Church and State, 1 Hansard's"/". H. vol. v. p. 596, 600. 2 Ibid. pp. 606-11. 8 Ibid. p. 611. VOL. I. 2 C 402 WILLIAM STARTS FOR IRELAND [book m. LA.D. 169O be enjoined to be made, repeated, and subscribed, by all persons above sixteen years of age.' x Nor may we omit to let in the side light that comes from another Resolution, bearing on the same theme, the peace and safety of the kingdom, and passed about a fortnight later, to this effect: — 'That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the 'listing, assembling, and exercising of Papists, and other disaffected persons, in arms, in several counties in the Kingdom, without their Majesties' com mission.' 2 We see how the Nation was seething with elements of discord and disloyalty ; and we understand what grounds William had in proroguing Parliament on May 23d, to urge his loyal Commons to 'vigilance in their several stations that the peace of the Nation may be secured.' 3 On 4th June 1690, the King set out for Ireland ; on 6th September of the same year he returned to London ; and it is no exaggeration to say that during these three months the British Empire passed through the most acute crisis in all its history. But it may be questioned if one man then living saw this as clearly, or felt it as keenly, as did William himself. Some vision of this epoch must be obtained by us, outside Parliamentary walls, and we turn for a moment to our classic historians.4 All this time, James was de facto King in Ireland, though Ulster had been wrenched from his grasp. It was guarded by the old war-dog, the Duke of Schomberg, though besieged behind the trenches at Dundalk by over whelming numbers, — where he had lain all winter battling with pestilence and death in every form, and wearying for the return of spring. But at Dublin, the Stuart Government was supreme, and was seen at its best ; i.e. at its worst, so far as Protestantism 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. v. p. 612. 2 Ibid. p. 647. 3 Ibid. p. 648. 4 Macaulay, ch. xvi. ; Green's 5. H. ch. ix. sect. viii. ; Hume, vol. iii. ch. ii. chap. v. I J conformity, to be proved at the Queen's Sessions ; while all inferior officers, as well as freemen in corporations having interest in elections, were now to be included.' 1 The Preamble sounded the highest note of toleration : — ' That nothing was more contrary to the profession of the Christian Religion, and particularly to the doctrine of the Church of England,2 than persecution for conscience only ; that the Act of William and Mary, for exempting Protestant subjects who dissented from the Church of England, from the penalties of certain laws, ought inviolably to be observed, and ease given to all consciences truly scrupulous.' 3 And then, by a ' nevertheless/ the framers of the bill proceeded to enact the outrageous penalties already indicated. It was carried in the Commons 'by a great majority.' The Lords boggled at it, added several modifying clauses, and altered the fines. The Commons raised a silly outcry about the Upper House ' interfering with their money bills.' One conference was held on December 17th, another on 9th January 1703, and finally, on the 16th of the same month, a ' Free Conference of both Houses in the Painted Chamber.' It was 'the most crowded that ever had been known.' In their final vote on each of these questions, the Lords 'adhered' to their amendments, but in each case only by a majority of one. The Commons were obstinate too, so for that session the bill was lost, in spite of the Court Party; and Burnet adds that those Bishops who stood out against that bill were ' set down for cold and slack in the concerns of the Church.'4 According to Tindal, the victory of the Lords was helped by the satire of Daniel De Foe, 'a hosier in the city of London/ who ridiculed the Church Party in his pamphlet entitled, The Shortest Way with Dissenters. On the face of it, the reader was led to understand that he was perusing 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. p. 59. 2 Ibid. p. 61. 3 Ibid. p. 62. 4 Ibid. p. 60. 454 CONFORMITY BILL AND LAND TAX [book iv. La.d. 1703-4 a serious plea for the Establishment ; but it was really a case of ' holding the mirror up to Nature ' — of showing these Churchmen their own bitter and persecuting spirit. It re produced 'the sense and drift' of their most violent attacks upon Dissenters ; it represented fire and faggot to be ' neither cruel nor barbarous as against toads and snakes ; ' it described Dissenters as 'poisoning' the souls of men, and deserving to be 'rooted out' of this Nation as destructive vermin.1 The Commons fiercely resented this gibe, pro secuted De Foe, fined him £200, ordered his book to be burned by the common hangman, and sent himself to the pillory, — protesting all the while that he had but given Churchmen in a somewhat distilled form the 'sense and spirit ' of their own hateful pamphlets. In the next session, November 1703, the 'Conformity Bill/ with many modifications, was again forced through the Commons by a great majority ; but once more the Lords rejected it, and this time by a majority of twelve.2 Burnet declares they felt it to be ' a breach of the Toleration ; ' and he adds, with a thrill of the Revolution days, ' I for my part was resolved never to be silent, when that should be brought into debate.' 3 Nay, in the third session, which met in October 1704, we find this ' Conformity Bill/ with still greater modifications, again engaging the attention of the Commons, who tried to 'tack it on to a Land Tax Bill' to entrap the Lords into passing it,4 — being equivalent to offering them ' a bribe of two millions as its price.' 5 But the ' tack was rejected ' by them selves by a vote of 251 to 134;6 and the Lords, on 14th December, rejected the bill itself for the third time by 71 to 50, a growing majority.7 And so, for that Parliament at least, the subject passes out of view, though finally it was enacted in 171 1, at the instigation of the Earl of Nottingham, 1 Hansard's/". H. vol. vi. p. 92. 2 Ibid. p. 153. 3 Ibid. p. 158. 4 Ibid. p. ,359. 5 Ibid. p. 360. 6 Ibid. p. 362. 7 Ibid. p. 36S, chap. i. "] THE SUCCESSION IN SCOTLAND 455 a.d. 1703J ^JJ only to be scornfully repealed again, as well as the Act of Schism, in 17 18, when the country had recovered its breath. The bill deserves no notice here at all, except as the most concrete illustration of a hateful spirit that then came into power in high quarters, and out of which grew many of the ' brutal Penal Laws ' in Ireland, of which we shall hear so much in the days to come. Early in 1703, still stronger measures were taken to strengthen the ' Protestant Succession.' A bill was passed, giving a year of grace to those ' who had not yet taken the Oath abjuring the pretended Prince of Wales/ And the Lords this time showed where their sympathies really lay by adding two severe clauses ; the one declaring it ' High Treason to endeavour to defeat the Succession as limited by law, or to set aside the next Successor/ the other ordering the Abjuration 'to be sent to Ireland, and obliging all there to swear it as in England.' But these passed unanimously, amidst ' great surprise in both Houses.' 1 In December of the same year, the atmosphere of Parlia ment becomes turbid with rumours about what is called the ' Scottish Plot.' A Queen's Speech at that time bristles with references to 'the ill practices and designs carried on in Scotland by the emissaries of France.'2 An 'Address' in reply from the Lords, denouncing this 'dangerous conspiracy for raising a rebellion in Scotland, and invading that king dom with a French Power/ declares it to be their ' concurrent opinion ' that nothing so much fosters that state of matters, as the fact that, ' after your Majesty and the heirs of your body, the immediate succession to the Crown of Scotland is not declared to be in the Princess Sophia and the heirs of her body, being Protestants ; ' 3 and accordingly, they earnestly besought her Majesty to have it so declared by Act of Parliament in that kingdom. The upshot of which, and of other agitations, was that we 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. pp. 93, 94. 2 Ibid. p. 177. 3 Ibid. p. 223. 456 RESOLUTION FOR ENTIRE UNION [ book iv. La.d. 1704 find Lord Haversham bringing on a great debate in the next session on 'the Affairs of Scotland.' He declared that there was much discontent among the Nobility and Gentry there, who were 'as learned and as brave as in any nation in Europe ; ' and great poverty among the common People, who were ' very numerous, and very stout, but very poor.' a The debate was fixed for 29th November 1704, and created so great an interest that the Queen herself began to attend the House. It issued on the 20th December in a ' Resolu tion for an entire union with the Kingdom of Scotland.'2 The formerly appointed Commissioners, who began to sit at the Cock Pit on 22d October 1702, had made no progress, — splitting over small questions about the rights and privileges of 'trading companies' in different quarters of the world. A new motive power would henceforth be applied to their deliberations. This same Parliament displayed a very miscellaneous appetite for business. At one time it was sorely exercised over Dr. William Coward's Grand Essay, and Second Thoughts concerning the Human Soul. He regarded him self as 'vindicating Reason and Religion against the im positions of Philosophy.' He pronounced the idea of 'the soul being an immaterial spiritual substance united to the human body/ to be a ' plain Heathenish invention.' But this orthodox Parliament censured his books, and 'condemned them to be burned by the hangman.' 3 Wheeling round upon the Social Problem of their day, we find them adopting very drastic and not altogether unwholesome measures for ridding the country of ' vagrant idlers/ and other sharks that prey upon decent people. In an 'Act for raising Recruits,' passed in 1704, the Justices of Peace, or any three of them, were empowered ' to take up such idle persons as had no calling nor means of subsistence, and to deliver them to the officers of the Army and Navy, upon 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. p. 370. 2 Ibid. p. 372. 3 Ibid. p. 331. chap. I. -| THE LAST PARLIAMENT 'OF ENGLAND' 457 a.d. 1705J ^-" paying them the levy money that was allowed for making recruits.' 1 Surely an infinitely preferable alternative to that of training them for Hell, on the see-saw betwixt the thieves' den and the common gaol ! And finally, for this Parliament, we are told that amongst the bills ' not passed ' in its third and last session, was one in the Lords directed 'against the Papists.' It was founded on ' petitions and complaints' regarding them, especially from Cheshire, where 'the practices and insolences of those of that Religion ' had kindled the easily-fanned Protestant ire of the day. It reduplicated back upon ' the Act of four years before/ and provided new means for making its clauses 'more effectual.'2 But for some reason the Commons, who did not lack stomach enough for similar tasks, were opposed to this one. So they managed to keep the bill of the Lords lying on their table till the prorogation on 14th March 1705, when it 'fell to the floor/ and was swept away with other rubbish of the year. The new Parliament assembled on 25th October 1705. It is the last separate and independent 'Parliament o England.' It saw the first Union of the Kingdoms, and the origin of the 'British' Parliament. The Queen's Speech touched on that subject prospectively. But it was full also of ' the war ' with France, and of ' the cry ' that the Church was in danger. She complains that thereby her people are being ' distracted with unreasonable and groundless distrusts and jealousies.' And she continues, — ' The best proof we can all give at present of our zeal for the preservation of the Protestant Church will be to join heartily in prosecuting the war against the enemy, who is certainly engaged to extirpate our Religion as well as to reduce the Kingdom to slavery.' Then, flaming up into a kind of enthusiasm, she cries : — ' I am fully resolved by God's assistance to do my part ; I will always affectionately support and countenance the Church 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. p. 335. " Ibid. p. 438. 458 GROWTH OF POPERY BILL Tbook vi. ^J La.d. 1706 of England as by law established ; and I will inviolably maintain the Toleration.' 1 The Church-in-danger ' cry ' was being manipulated by politicians throughout the country. The Lords had a great debate immediately on that theme, and passed a Resolution by 61 votes against 30, 'that whosoever goes about to suggest and insinuate that the Church is in danger under her Majesty's administration is an enemy to the Queen, the Church, and the Kingdom.' The Commons eagerly con curred. And the Queen issued her ' proclamation' against the projected ' Memorial of the Church of England.' 2 The poor Church might suffer, but she must not cry aloud. The fiercer spirit, infused into the times by the claims of a Popish Pretender, was strongly displayed in an attempt to pass what was called the ' Growth of Popery Bill ' early in 1706. A petition had been presented to the Commons from the ' Gentry and Clergy ' of South Lancashire, complaining of 'the grievances they laboured under from the Priests, Romish Gentry, and Popish Emissaries, and praying for redress and relief.' The House 'unanimously resolved to address the Queen to put in execution the laws still in force against all such persons as had perverted, or should en deavour to pervert, her Majesty's subjects to the Popish Religion.' The very next day, a bill was introduced by Sir James Montague, 'to make more effectual the Act of the eleventh year of the late reign.' That Act had enjoined all Papists, ' within six months after they had reached the age of eighteen, to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, or to declare themselves Protestants, in default whereof their estates were to go to the next heirs, being Protestants.' 3 But Roman Catholics had found out ways of evading this condition. And so it was now proposed, 'that Papists and reputed Papists should, within six months after they had reached the age of eighteen, not only declare themselves 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. p. 452. 2 Ibid. pp. 507-510. 3 Ibid. p. 514, chap. I."] LORDS' 'ADDRESS AGAINST PAPISTS' 459 A.D. 1 706 J ^¦'^ Protestants, but prove also that they had made such a declaration.' The reasoning that prevailed with the promoters of such measures is thus summarised by the chronicler: — 'The dependence of those of that Religion on a Foreign juris diction, and at present on a Foreign Pretender to the Crown, put them out of the case of other subjects who might differ from the Established Religion, since there seemed to be good reason to consider them as enemies rather than as subjects! x The bill at first seemed to carry the whole House, and easily reached its third reading stage. But then better thoughts or other influences began to prevail, and it was finally rejected by a vote of 149 to 43. Thereon, the Lords, apparently chagrined at the loss of so precious a morsel, gave vent to their feelings by issuing an ' Address against the Papists' instead of a Bill ; in representing which to her Majesty, after setting forth ' the intolerable boldness and presumptions of the Romish Priests and the Papists, in employing all their inveigling arts and devices in perverting and seducing the Gentry and Commonalty, in defiance of the laws/ they proceeded to declare that ' such open insolence shown by people so obnoxious to the laws . . . does not only rouse in us a just indignation, but makes us think it absolutely necessary . . . that a distinct and particular account should be taken of all Papists and reputed Papists in this Kingdom, with their respective qualities, estates, and places of abode.' 2 The greater part of this session till its prorogation on 19th March 1706, the whole of the ensuing summer, and nearly the entire second and last session of this Parliament, which opened on 3d December 1706 and was prorogued on 24th March 1707, was engrossed with the great international question of the Union betwixt England and Scotland, which 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. p. 515. 2 Ibid. p. 516. 460 FLETCHER OF SALTOUN [book iv. La.d. 1703 was finally consummated from and after 1st May of that year. Because of its bearing upon the Protestant Establish ments, and because of the part which this transaction played in the great debates of next century as to claims for Roman Catholic relief from disabilities, it is essential for us to turn aside, and carry away some clear vision of these events.1 This Union Proposal had really been forced on the attention of statesmen by the divergent lines taken since the death of William in the two independent Parliaments. In June 1703, the Parliament of Scotland 'rejected the Toleration Act/ submitted to them from England. The General Assembly there went the length of declaring to the Estates : — ' That to enact Toleration for those of the Epi scopal way (which God of His infinite mercy avert !) would be to establish iniquity by a law, and would bring upon the pro moters thereof and their families the dreadful guilt of all those sins and pernicious effects that might ensue thereupon.' On the 22d of the same month, an ' Act for the Security of the Kingdom ' was brought in by Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, in case of the Queen's death, limiting the Succession by twelve specific ' conditions,' prefaced by the following very suggestive clause, — ' which, in the case only of our being under the same King as England, are as follows.' And in one section, where he enjoins ' the arming of Protestant subjects for security/ he shows the spirit in which by con trast he would treat all Papists through the significant reason assigned : — ' The possession of arms is the distinction of a freeman from a slave.' In the following September, the Earl of Marchmont brought down and submitted the English ' Act to settle the Succession on the House of Hanover,' but when the Clerk came to the words about the ' Princess Sophia, etc./ we are told that ' the whole House burst into a flame.' The Queen, however, resolutely refused to pass their ' Scotch Act of 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi., Appendix No. I. chap. i. "1 LIMITATIONS FOR SCOTTISH SUCCESSION 46 1 a.d. 1 704 J Security/ Fletcher, on the other hand, found himself ' charged with laying schemes for a Commonwealth.' There are traces indeed that he had thought profoundly on Constitutional questions ; and his declared aim was to free Scotland 'alike from shameless dependence on the Court at St. Germains, or on the House of Hanover ; they were neither to be slaves to England, nor slaves to France and Popery! Consequently, Fletcher proposed that 'no one shall succeed to the Crown in this realm that is likewise the successor to the Crown in England, but under the limitations following, which, together with the Oath of Coronation and the Claim of Right, they shall swear to observe.' He sought to provide that 'all places, offices, and pensions, hitherto conferred by Kings should ever after be given by Parlia ment;' that Parliaments be 'chosen annually' at Michael mas, to sit from 1st November, and to 'choose their own President;' and that a 'Committee of thirty-six members, chosen by and out of the whole Parliament without dis tinction of Estates/ shall 'have the administration of the King's Government, constitute his Council, and be account able to Parliament,' with power in extraordinary cases 'to call a Parliament together.' In the following summer, July 1704, when the Queen's ' Letter ' to the , Scotch Estates insisted that ' the main business before them was the settling of the Succession in the Protestant Line/ her Commissioner, Hamilton, sent back word 'that the Scots would not name the Succession till they had a " Treaty with England " in relation to commerce, and other concerns.' Some light as to these ' other concerns ' may be gained by studying the terms of a motion, at the same time, by Sir James Falconer of Phesdo : — ' That this Parliament will proceed to make such limitations and conditions of Government as may secure the Religion, Liberties, and Independence of this Nation, before they proceed to the nomination of a Successor to the Crown/ 462 NEGOTIATIONS FOR UNION [book iv. La.d. 1706 In August, however, the ' Scotch Act of Security ' was at length accepted and passed, under threat of refusing all 'Supplies for the Army' there; and so the two Kingdoms were actually divided by a different law as to Succession to the Crown, — which, under an emergency, might any day give them again two separate Kings. The next Queen's ' Letter' to her faithful Parliament of Scotland, which met in the following year, June 1705, was naturally more urgent than ever. The Union Treaty ' must be set on foot' But the Three Estates still persisted in long debates as to the ' limitations of the Succession/ — the choosing ' by Parliament' of all the officers of State, Privy Councillors, and Lords of Session, — and finally, 'Triennial' Parliaments. And when at length they reached, and passed ' An Act for a Treaty of Union with England/ there were tabled and minuted no less than twenty ' protests ' by Nobles, thirty-three by Barons, and eighteen by Burgh Representatives. We now transfer our interest, for a few months, to England. On the 16th April 1706, the new ' Commissioners from the two Kingdoms' held their first meeting 'in the Cock Pit near Whitehall.' They agreed that there should be ' one kingdom by the name of Great Britain/ governed by ' one and the same Parliament] and that the ' Succession to the Monarchy be limited by the Act of the twelfth and thirteenth years of William's reign.' Then came the tug of war over the proposal ' that the rights of all subjects be reciprocal and mutual/ as to trade, commerce, etc. ; and that ' all laws and statutes in either kingdom be repealed ' that are contrary to these Articles. The Scots stuck unflinch ingly to their proviso, ' that there be full freedom and inter course of trade and navigation ; ' and the English, strange to say, agreed that this was not a necessary consequence of an 'entire Union.' On the 21st May, the Queen sent them a message of her ' great satisfaction ' thus far, and of her warm ' hopes ' for a full settlement, — spurring them on by her chap. I"] CHARGES OF BETRAYAL 463 A.D. 1706J ^ J promise of a personal 'visit to their Conference.' A month later she writes again, pressing for a ' decision.' On the 28th June, at their thirty-fifth meeting, a Committee was em powered ' to draw up the Articles.' On the 22d July they were presented, finally adjusted, and the 'instruments' signed and sealed. Next day the Commissioners waited on the Queen at St. James's. The Lord Keeper of England then presented her with an ' instrument ' signed and sealed, explaining that it was ' the terms or conditions upon which the Union is to take place, if your Majesty and the Parliaments of both kingdoms shall think fit to approve of and confirm the same.' The Lord Chancellor of Scotland did the same, and assured her Majesty that what they had done was ' done with unanimity/ and that it was ' necessary for establishing the lasting peace, happiness, and prosperity of both nations.' And the Queen rejoined that it would be to her a ' particular happiness/ if this Union could be accomplished in her reign. From that moment, the movement was pushed forward concurrently in England and in Scotland. But the Parlia ment in Scotland was first launched on the stormy sea of debate by a Queen's ' Letter ' submitted to them on 30th October 1706. She urged them to agree to an 'entire and perfect Union/ and at the same time to do all that was ' necessary for the securing of your present Church Govern ment, after Union, within the limits of the kingdom of Scotland.' Fletcher hotly protested, that ' the interest and honour of the Nation had been betrayed by their Com missioners.' Outside the walls of Parliament, it was freely proclaimed that the country was being sold for English gold ! And a good specimen of the spirit of the times has been preserved in the 'Lauder Instructions.' The Magistrates and Town Council of that ancient burgh sent ' instructions/ to the effect that the proposed Union was ' dishonourable and prejudicial 464 SCOTTISH CHURCH INVIOLABLE ["book iv. La.d. 1706 to the kingdom of Scotland, tending to the destruction of their ancient Constitution, and of their rights and privileges as a Free People.' They instructed their representatives to insist ' that the Scots Parliament shall continue in all time hereafter as formerly ; and that the laws and subjects of Scotland shall be only subjected to the wisdom of the Scots Parliament, constituted according to the laws of the said kingdom.' On no other but ' this one condition ' would they treat with England. But these patriotic heroics were all in vain. The first Article was passed whereby the Union was ' decreed/ Then came the bill for the security of the Church. It was en titled, 'An Act for securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government;' and its object is declared to be : — ' That the true Protestant Religion, as presently pro fessed in this kingdom, with the Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church, should be effectually and unalter ably secured.' It proceeds ' hereby to establish and confirm the said true Protestant Religion ... to continue without any alteration to the people of this land in all succeeding generations.' Professors, Principals, Regents, and Masters, are to ' own the Civil Government/ as by the Acts of Parlia ment, to 'subscribe' the Confession of Faith, and to 'submit' to the Presbyterian Government. ' No Oath, Test, or Sub scription inconsistent with these ' is to be binding in Scot land. Every Sovereign, at Succession, is to 'swear and subscribe,' to maintain and preserve the aforesaid Settlement, as established, ' inviolably.' And this Act was to constitute a 'fundamental and essential condition of any Treaty of Union.' An ' English Party ' in the House defeated the proposal ' that the Scots should be exempted from the Sacramental Test' when they went to England. And, per contra, the General Assembly sent a strong representation against our ' taking any step or giving any consent for the establishment chap. I. | NATIONAL RELIGION AND NATIONAL LAW 465 A.D. 1 707 J ^ J of the Hierarchy and its Episcopal ceremonies in England/ lest they should ' involve themselves and this whole Nation in guilt' There is not much room for choice, as betwixt English and Scotch ; the spirit of another age still ruled them both. The Scotch Parliament finally approved of the Union, by a vote of 1 10 against 69. They were to send sixteen Peers by election to the House of Lords, and forty-five Members to the House of Commons, and were henceforth to form a constituent part of the new Parliament of Great Britain. Having completed these deeds, they adjourned on the 25th March 1707, never to meet again as heretofore ; and as they left the Halls of so many tender and tragic memories, one of their number exclaimed, with a fine mixture of humour and of pathos, — 'There 's the end o' an auld sang!'1 The ' Act ratifying and approving the Treaty of the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England ' provides also, among other things, that ' the Court of Session, or College of Justice, shall in all time coming remain within the kingdom of Scotland, subject to the Parliament of Great Britain.' So that in parting with her Parliament, and all that clusters around that word, Scotland preserved and hoped to keep 'inviolate' her National Church and her National Courts of Justice. Her form of Religion, and her adminis tration of Law were to be for ever her own — not even British, and above all, by no possibility English, but purely and characteristically and inviolably Scotch. To go back for a moment to England, — when the Queen's Speech, in December 1706, commended the subject of 'the Union' to her home Parliament, the Lords in their reply ejaculated : — ' May God Almighty make these your glorious designs successful ! ' 2 And the Commons dilated upon her Majesty's 'great concern and tenderness not only for the present but the future happiness of both Kingdoms.' 3 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. Appendix No. 1. 2 Ibid. p. 545. 3 Ibid. p. 558. VOL. I. 2 G 466 THE UNION CONSUMMATED [book iv. La.d. 1707 The debate on the Union took place in the English Lower House in February 1707. Many speakers breathed as bitter a tone as that of Sir John Packington, who declared that this Treaty has been 'carried on by corruption and bribery within doors and by force and violence without'1 And as to the ' Oath to promote Presbyterian Church Government in Scotland/ he asked, not without considerable ground for his amazement : — ' How could two Nations, each with a Jure Divino for its Church, manage so to unite ? ' He moved the House 'to consult Convocation about this critical point' 2 But Major-General Mordant, with a happy audacity, saved them from the jaws of theology by declaring, ' that he knew of no other Jus Divinum than God Almighty's permission ; in which sense it might be said that the Church of England and the Kirk of Scotland were both Jure Divino, because God Almighty had permitted that the first should prevail in England and the other in Scotland.'3 On the 8th February the House approved the Articles. In the Upper House, the Lords certainly lost no time ; for, on the 15th of the same month, the Act of Union was passed ' by a great majority.' And the ' old song ' saying of the Scotch Baron was more than matched by the solemn and even grotesque exclamation of the Earl of Nottingham, that, when that bill was passed, he ' might affirm that he had outlived the laws and the very Constitution of England.'4 The Queen passed the bill on the 6th and prorogued the Parliament on the 24th March 1707. So the words of the old Earl became in a certain aspect truer than the sense in which he meant them. England, as having a separate Con stitution, ' ceased to exist ; ' Scotland, as having a separate Constitution, 'ceased to exist' There remained, on and after ist May 1707, only the KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN and the British Parliament. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. p. 560. 2 Ibid. p. 561. 3 Ibid. p. 561. 4 Ibid. p. 569. chap. i. "] FIRST PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN 467 A.D. 1 707 J ^ ' The First Parliament of Great Britain assembled at Westminster on the 23d October 1707. The old Parliament had simply been allowed to drop, in both countries, after the prorogation. It was now revived by a 'proclamation' summoning both to meet together as the Parliament of Great Britain ; and all the forms were observed that are customary at the opening of a new Parliament. The Queen's Speech declared : — ' On my part nothing shall be wanting to procure to my People all the blessings which can follow from this happy circumstance of my reign, and to extinguish by all proper means the least occasions of jealousy that either the Civil or the Religious Rights of any part of this, my United Kingdom, can suffer by the consequences of this Union.' And her faithful Commons congratulated her Majesty upon being 'the glorious instrument' of uniting her two Kingdoms ! They were not left to crow in peace very long. Immense preparations were going on at Dunkirk ; and on 4th March 1708, both Houses presented an 'Address' to the Queen regarding 'the threatened invasion of her kingdom by a Popish Pretender.'1 The so-called son of James 11. had assumed the name of the ' Chevalier de St. George ; ' and, with all countenance from France and Rome, he claimed the throne and meditated a descent upon our shores. The project, however, miscarried for the time ; and when the Queen prorogued Parliament on the ist April, and was thanking them ' for large and timely supplies for the effectual prosecution of the war/ she proudly continued : — ' I take this, especially at this juncture, to be such indubitable proof of your zeal and affection to my service, as must fully convince everybody of your doing me the justice to be lieve that all which is dear to you is perfectly safe under my Government, and must be irrevocably lost if ever the designs of a Popish Pretender, bred up in the 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. p. 726. 468 SACHEVERELL'S SERMONS [book iv- La.d. 1709 principles of the most Arbitrary Government, should take place.' 1 It is impossible to kindle any enthusiasm for this bigoted and weak personality, whom Courtiers have dubbed ' the good Queen Anne.' But it is equally impossible not to recognise that she was, and that she acted as if she felt it, during her remaining years, the greatest surviving bulwark in Europe against the resistless inroad of Popery, riding as before on the back of Arbitrary Power. The Second Parliament of Great Britain assembled on the 16th November 1708, and lasted for only two sessions. It was opened ' by Commission/ and the Queen caused the Lord Chancellor to say : — ' I conjure you by your duty to God and to her Majesty, your zeal for the Protestant Religion, your love for your Country, and the regard you cannot but have for the liberty of Europe in general, to avoid all occasion of divisions, which are ever hurtful to the public, but will more especially be so at this juncture.'2 And the Commons sent back a jubilant answer, rejoicing at 'the glorious successes of the year/3 as they called the victory of Oudenarde, won by Britain and her Allies. But the second session of this Parliament witnessed one of those strange popular frenzies which indicate rather than create a revolution of opinion. It arose over ' the impeach ment of Dr. Henry Sacheverell/ a furious High Churchman and Jacobite ; and the son, strange to note, of a certain Dr. John Sacheverell, once a Presbyterian Minister in Somerset shire, who was silenced soon after the Restoration. This Sacheverell had preached and published sermons on 'the Communication of Sin ' and ' the Perils of False Brethren/ in which he made scurrilous reflections on King William and on the Hanoverian Succession. He even called her Majesty ' a waxen Queen,' — alluding to those who put her 7 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. p. 731. 2 Ibid. p. 753. 3 Ibid. p. 756. chap. i. i LIBELS ON QUEEN AND CONSTITUTION 469 A.D. I7IOJ ^ ^ motto, semper eadem, upon a weathercock, because she appeared against the ' High Church Memorial.' The Commons found ' that the sermons contained principles that were directly opposed to the Revolution Settlement, to the present Government, and to the Protestant Succession ; ' and resolved ' that the two sermons were malicious, scurrilous, and seditious libels.' They accordingly ' impeached ' Dr. Sacheverell with ' a wicked, malicious, and seditious intent to undermine and subvert her Majesty's Government and the Protestant Succession, as by law established, to defame her Majesty's Administration, to asperse the memory of his late Majesty, to traduce and condemn the late happy Revolution, to contradict and arraign the resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, to create jealousies and divisions among her Majesty's subjects, and to incite them to sedition and rebellion.' After this formidable preamble they specially charged him in a bill under these four heads : — '(1) That he taught ' Non-Resistance/ inasmuch as he declared that 'the necessary means used to bring about the said happy Revolution were odious and unjustifiable ; ' (2) ' Anti-Toleration/ declaring, as he did, ' that the aforesaid toleration granted by law is unreasonable and the allowance of it unwarrantable ; ' (3) ' Church in danger/ declaring, as he had done, ' that the Church of England is in a condition of greatest peril and adversity under her Majesty's Administration ; ' and (4) 'That her Majesty's Administration, both in Ecclesi astical and Civil affairs, tends to the destruction of the Constitution, that there are men of character and station in Church and State who are false brethren/ etc.1 On the 25th January 1710, the Commons delivered up him and his ' libel ' to the House of Lords. They found him 'guilty' by 69 to 52, suspended him for three years, and ordered his sermons to be burnt. But so unpopular had the 1 Hansard's/". H. vol. vi. pp. 810-812. 47° THE HEIR-PRESUMPTIVE [book iv. La.d. 1705-10 Government become, that the public fancy took to making an idol of this Sacheverell to show its spite. When the three years had expired London kindled ' bonfires ' and went into ' great rejoicings ; ' and so great was, by that time, the revulsion of general feeling that the very House of Commons invited him to preach before it ! 1 All this is chiefly valuable here as helping us to under stand the currents that were now decidedly flowing, in favour of the Jacobites amongst some, and in favour of Popery amongst others. And we can quite see that there may have been far stronger grounds than we now know for the warning which Burnet says that he delivered in person at this time to the Queen, of a ' prevalent impression that she had agreed with the Jacobites that the Pretender was to succeed her, on condition of their agreeing to her occupancy of the throne during her natural life.'2 It is certain that heretofore, and till the last, the Queen keenly opposed every proposal to 'invite the Heir-Presumptive to live in England ; ' e.g., when an 'Address ' to that effect was moved by Lord Haversham, she expressed great indignation, and 'threw herself more than ever into the hands and councils of Godolphin and the Whigs.'3 Nay, when, shortly thereafter, a ' Letter ' appeared from Sir Rowland Gwynne, advocating the inviting over of the Princess Sophia herself to England, the Queen persuaded the House in 1706 to vote it 'scandalous, false, and malicious, tending to create mis understandings and jealousies.' 4 One is sorely tempted to think that Queen Anne protesteth too much. If she had no secret plans of her own, why should not the Heir Presumptive at law see a little of his future kingdoms in her lifetime, and get half a chance of learning something of his duties and responsibilities ? When the Queen opened the Third Parliament of Great 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. p. 887. 2 Ibid. p. 899. 8 Ibid, p 460. 4 Ibid. p. 532. CHAPA iap. i. ] TREATY FOR A GENERAL PEACE 471 D. 171 ll ^' Britain on the 25th November 1710, her Speech showed that she and her Ministers felt the necessity for disabusing the public mind of these suspicions. ' I am resolved/ she said with special emphasis, ' to support and encourage the Church of England as by law established, to preserve the British Constitution according to the Union, and to maintain the Indulgence by law allowed to scrupulous consciences. . . . And, that all this may be transmitted to posterity, I shall employ none but such as are heartily for the Succession in the House of Hanover, the interest of which family no person can be more truly concerned for than myself.' 1 In the ' Address ' from the Commons, Mr. Lechmere moved a proposal, which was accepted by Harley, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to 'caution her Majesty against such measures and principles as might weaken the Settlement of the Crown in the illustrious House of Hanover and advance the hopes of the Pretender.' 2 Perhaps it is not inappropriate that we should find Parliament, during a session so launched amid speculations and fears, for the first time occupied with the ' South Sea Trade Bill/ out of which were blown by-and-bye so many ' bubbles.' It does not much concern us here ; though, as the years roll on, we cannot but hear the groans and feel the shock of despair which the bursting of these bubbles caused. With the opening of the second session, on the 7th December 171 1, came the welcome announcement of the Queen's Speech, that ' the place and time had been appointed for discussing the Treaty of a General Peace.' Despite all the glories and victories of Marlborough, which made his name a terror on the Continent of Europe, the Nation was sick at heart of this long-drawn war. In vain the Earl of Notting ham tried to stem the tide that was flowing for peace by carrying a motion in the Lords : — ' That no peace could be safe or honourable to Great Britain or Europe, if Spain and 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. p. 928. 2 Ibid. p. 930. 472 ARABELLA AND JOHN CHURCHILL [book iv. ' La.d. 1680-1711 the West Indies were allotted to any branch of the House of Bourbon.' 1 The Commons hated the Bourbons as heartily as he did, or any of the Peers ; but they were determined not to wreck this new hope of peace by meeting the diffi culties a single day sooner than they were actually born. Parliament adjourned on 22d December 171 1 for a brief recess, and, before it resumed, there was consummated one of these revolutions in personal destiny which exercise a strong fascination over the human mind. We must, per force, glance in passing at the rise and fall of the world- famous Duke of Marlborough.2 Arabella and John Churchill were a precious pair, but as brother and sister they managed to make their family name at once famous and infamous. Arabella came from her Devonshire home to be the Mistress of the Duke of York, and by that foul avenue her brother John got his Commission in the Royal Guards. His military genius was conspicuous from the first, and he became unquestionably the greatest soldier of his age. But the word ' honour ' had to him no meaning, and no gleam of ' conscience ' ever glimmered through his colossal selfishness. He seemed to cling to King James, and at the same moment he planned the mutiny in the Army which placed poor James at the mercy of the Prince of Orange. King William rewarded him with the rank of Earl of Marlborough, having sent him to carry out his plans in Ireland, and said in his soldierly way : — ' No officer living, who has seen so little service, is so fit for great commands.' When the tide of reaction began to set in, however, William found Marlborough among the foremost plotting to drive him from the throne, and seat there the Princess Anne. The King stript him of all his commands, and drove him and his wife from the Court, saying : — ' If I 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. p. 1036. 2 Green's .S. H. ch. ix. sect, ix..; Macaulay, ch. xi. chap. I. j SARAH JENNINGS AND THE PRINCESS 473 a.d. 1680-1711J J ^'J and my Lord Marlborough were private persons, the sword would settle it between us ! ' Churchill had married- a penniless beauty of Charles's Court, Sarah Jennings by name, who has come down to fame by two strange accomplishments. The one was that she domineered over the Princess Anne, and treated her now, and even after she was Queen, as an exacting and tyrannical school-girl would treat a very timid and squeezable governess. And the other was that she so led her lord and master by the nose, that he had the unique reputation of being at once the greatest warrior of his day and at the same time the most hen-pecked husband in England ! The Princess Anne followed them in their retiral from the Court ; they became the centre of several disloyal intrigues ; and King William came to know that Marl borough was actually corresponding with the banished James, and had revealed even the war projects of the Cabinet to the enemies of his country. But, after the death of Queen Mary, and as his own end drew manifestly nearer, the great King, for the sake of the Nation, recalled the Princess Anne to Court, and allowed the Marlboroughs to return in her train. He knew Marlborough to be at heart a knave ; but, knowing also his unrivalled genius for command, and trusting to bind him by new honours to be true to his country, he once more placed him at the head of the Army in Flanders, and, shortly before his decease, ' commended ' him to the Princess Anne. She • needed no fillip in that line. Within three days of her Accession, she proclaimed him 'Captain-General of all the Forces ; ' and for ten years, by the help of the Allies, he kept Europe in one turmoil of battles ; while by the help of the redoubtable Sarah at Court, with other creatures and friends in the Cabinets at home, he literally held the reins and guided the destinies of Britain. The Parliament was restive from the first, and had to be humoured and managed 474 MARLBOROUGH'S GLORIES [book iv. La.d. i 702- ii now by Whig, and now by Tory influences, but all came alike handy to the self-seeking soul of Marlborough. Within six months the infatuated Queen, doubtless with Sarah pulling strings skilfully in the background, not only promoted the Earl to a Dukedom, but sent a message to the Commons, that she had granted him a pension of £5000 per annum from the Revenues of the Post Office ' during her own lifetime to support this honour/ and asking them to make the pension have ' the same term ' as the title, — that is, to make it permanent to him and his heirs ! The Commons, says the old chronicler, sat for some time ' in amaze/ and kept ' so long silent/ that the Speaker stood up and ' looked round for some one to break the ice.' There ensued a hot debate, and a flat declinature — the rage of the House shading itself behind the diplomatic pretence that they were afraid of ' making a precedent for the future alienation of the Revenue!'1 For a while the whole Nation was dazzled and over powered. The glories of Blenheim blinded the multitude in 1704, as they still blind the vision of historians to this day. The splendid feat at Ramillies in 1706, whereby he crushed in an hour and a half the power of France, and set Flanders free, threw a glamour over the eyes of all Europe. His brilliant reduction, in 1708, of the so-called impregnable fortress of Lille, on the frontiers, in ^sight of a relieving Army of 100,000 men, at last broke the spirit of King Lewis, and made him willing to sue for terms of peace, — which Marlborough rendered intolerable, it was supposed, in order to ' lengthen out the war ' for purposes of private gain.2 At any rate, the rejection of Lewis's terms, who offered to ' acknowledge Anne, to banish the Pretender, and to demolish Dunkirk/ awoke a storm of popular passion in England. And when, in 1709, the news of the useless 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. pp. 57, 58. 2 Green's S. H. ch. ix. sect. ix. p. 699. CHAP.A. HAP- l- I MARLBOROUGH'S DISGRACE 475 .d. 1711J ^' J slaughter at Malplaquet, a mere ' deluge of blood ' on both sides reached our shores, the thunder-cloud rent, and the day of Marlborough began to decline. The squeezable Queen Anne had been rescuing herself from the domination of the redoubtable Sarah Jennings, but only, as her nature would have it, to place her neck under the heels of Harley and Mrs. Masham, — for she was never happier than when crouching under some favourite's yoke. Alas ! that nations should thus be played with as toys ! In February 1710, we find Marlborough 'asking leave to retire ' from his command.1 In April, Sarah has ' a farewell audience ' of the Queen. In December 171 1, Marlborough egged on the Lords ' against ' the contemplated peace, and carried their votes.2 The Queen and the Commons, however, were sick of the war and set on the peace ; and the long- smothered indignation and revenge at last fell with full force on the head of the doomed Marlborough. But how are the mighty fallen ! He sinks amidst no odours of glory, but in a stew of the meanest avarice ; if glory there be, it is the glory of the swindler and the thief. The ' Commissioners of Public Accounts ' find him guilty of receiving £5000 per annum as a ' bribe ' from Sir Solomon Medina, ' the Jew who supplied the bread to the soldiers in Flanders ;' also, he had been paid 'two and a half per cent. as a deduction out of the pay of all the Foreign troops/ which amounted annually to about £15,000; and further, not to specify numberless paltry and systematic ' peculations/ he had pocketed £10,000 per annum from the Queen ' to support his dignity, and to secure intelligence.'3 In a Privy Council, held on 30th December 171 1, the Queen ignominiously ' dismissed him from all her employ ments,' and Marlborough found it convenient to ' withdraw from England.' Thus rose and fell the baleful star of the Churchills, with a kind of glory of which neither Man nor 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. p. 897. - Ibid. p. 1038. 3 Ibid. p. 1058. 476 THE PATRONAGE ACT [book iv. La.d. 1712 Nation ought to be proud. It began in his sister's debauchery, it was fed by his country's blood, and it went spluttering out at last in his own mean and miserable greed of gold. Sic transit gloria mundi ! Shortly after the session was resumed, we find this Third Parliament engaged in a dastardly piece of business, which covered with disgrace Queen Anne and her Ministry, and, by-and-bye, was the cause of splitting to pieces the old and historic Church of Scotland. A bill was introduced and forced through both Houses, ' to restore Patrons to their ancient Rights in Scotland.' 1 Nobody there wished it, that had any authority to speak either for Church or People. Nothing but Prelatic and Popish devilment could have suggested such a measure. Carstares, Blackwell, and Baillie arrived to find it already before the Lords, and eagerly appealed to them ' to preserve the Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland.'2 They protested on unquestionable Constitutional grounds : — ' This Bill now pending seems to be contrary to the present Constitution of our Church so well secured by the Treaty of Union, and solemnly ratified by the Acts of Parliament of both Kingdoms.' They argued wisely: — 'From the first Reformation from Popery, the Church of Scotland hath always reckoned Patronages a grievance and a burden . . . since which time they were still judged a grievance, till at length they came by law to be abolished.'2 They protested keenly : — ' Strange that this bill should be so insisted upon, where there are so many Patrons, and these of the most considerable in Scotland, that are against such a restitution !' They prophesied sadly : — ' It also appears that Presbyterians must come under many difficulties and hard ships, that many contentions, disorders, and differences will probably ensue, besides many abuses and simoniacal practices.' Their representations were all in vain. The Houses 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. p. 1 126. 2 Ibid. pp. 1 128, 1129. CHAP, A. HAP- '• 1 TREATY OF UTRECHT 477 .D. 1713J *' ' passed the bill with a light heart, on 14th April 17 12. Scotland went on for nearly the whole century petitioning for its ' repeal.' Parliament refused to listen till the Church had been split into fragments by that Patronage Act. It has now of late been cancelled, but its evils have not been undone. Many generations of Scotchmen, yet to be, shall continue to curse the name and memory of the Patronage Act of Queen Anne ! It need scarcely surprise any one that in the following year, during the third and last session of this Parliament after the proposals of the ' Malt Bill ' had further aggravated the Scotch, — exacting an ' equal tax ' while knowing the malt in the North was only ' half the value ' of that in the South, — the Earl of Findlater should have almost carried the in troduction of a ' Bill for Dissolving the Union.' It was to secure, however, ' the Succession in the House of Hanover,' the ' Queen's Prerogative in both Kingdoms,' and the ' entire unity and good correspondence ' of the two countries. This was on the ist June 1713 ; the bill was refused by a majority of only four, and the fate of the Union hung trembling in the balance.1 But the Queen and her new friends could afford to ignore these signs. They had gained a great European victory. Bolingbroke had arrived on Good Friday with the ' Treaty of Utrecht ' in his pocket. France had been taken ' bound to give neither harbour nor assistance to the Pretender/ and at the same time, ' to acknowledge the Queen's title and the Protestant Succession as settled by Acts of Parliament' Gibraltar was finally ceded to Britain ; Dunkirk was dis mantled at her demand ; and Peace spread her wings over Europe once more. When the Fourth Parliament of Great Britain assembled on the 16th February 1714, the Queen was 'ill with gout/ and had to be 'borne in a chair' to the House.2 She spoke 1 Hansard's/3. H. vol. vi. p. 1216. 2 Ibid. p. 1242. 478 SWIFT AND STEELE [book iv. La.d. 1714 of the ' honour and advantages of the peace/ and about that wild dream of our 'holding the balance in Europe.' And then, referring to certain ' insinuations ' about the Protestant Succession, she defended herself hotly, and said she ' men tioned these proceedings with some degree of warmth.'1 But, good and true Protestant as she was and claimed to be, her policy kept Parliament and the Nation in ceaseless turmoil about the future ; and as she was now forty-nine, and in the grips of gout, that future might any day be launched upon them. Political writers, too, increased the frenzy by pamphlets and satires innumerable. Swift dipped his savage pen in gall, and, in his Public Spirit of the Whigs, violently attacked the Union, and ridiculed the Scotch as ' a fierce poor northern people.'2 Steele was put on his trial by the House for his Crisis, The Englishman, and The Last Englishman, and spoke for three hours, ' prompted by Joseph Addison.' 3 Though supported by Robert Walpole, and his brother Horatio, he was censured and expelled for teaching 'that the Succession is in danger.'4 Steele did not improve matters by his so-called Apology, — the avowed object of which was 'to show the arbitrary use of numbers in the most odious colours, that gentlemen may have a just detesta tion of practising a thing in itself unwarrantable, from the support only of the insolent and unmanly sanction of a Majority.' 6 In April the Lords and Commons agreed, by considerable majorities, 'that the Protestant Succession was out of danger ; ' 6 but they also sent to the Queen a ' demand ' that the Electoral Prince of Hanover should sit in the House of Peers as Duke of Cambridge;7 and they insisted, in an ' Address/ that she ' should renew her instances to the King 1 Hansard's/3. H. vol. vi. p. 1256. 2 Ibid. pp. 1260-1265. 8 Ibid. p. 1266. 4 Ibid. p. 1274. 6 Ibid. pp. 1275-1327. 6 Ibid. p. 1335, 1348. 7 Ibid. p. 1341. CHAP.A. hap. i. "I THE SCHISM BILL 479 .D. I714-I ' of France for the speedy removal of the Pretender out of Lorraine.' 1 But to show the hollowness of the times, the very men who voted the Protestant Succession ' out of danger/ united in the month of May to pass what is known as the ' Schism Bill' (repealed again in 1718), which in its senseless reaction plainly imperilled the Revolution Settlement itself.2 At least so Somers with thirty-four other Peers regarded it, and in their ' Protest/ engrossed on the Journals, the fourth paragraph runs thus, and reveals all the spirit of the Act : — ' IV. This is the more grievous to Dissenters, be cause it was so little expected from members of the Established Church, after so favourable an indulgence as the Act of Toleration, and the repeated declarations and professions from the Throne and from Parliament against all persecution ; which is the peculiar badge of the Romish Church, which avows and practises this doctrine ; and yet it has not been retaliated even upon the Papists, — for all the laws made against them have been the effects and just punishments of treasons, from time to time committed against the State ; but it is not pretended that this bill is designed as a punishment of any crime, which the Protestant Dissenters have been guilty of against the Civil Government, or that they are disaffected to the Protestant Succession as by law established, for in this their zeal is very con spicuous. ' 3 Alas, they were too conspicuous in their zeal for the projects of the traitors and conspirators that now ruled the affairs of the dying Queen ; and the blow struck at Pro testant Dissenters but indicated what they were preparing to do against their country. The 'Queen's Last Speech' on 9th July feebly appealed to them to ' lay aside all groundless jealousies.' 4 The die, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. p. 1337. 2 Ibid. p. 1349- 3 Ibid. p. 1357. 4 Ibid. p. 1363. 480 CHARACTER OF QUEEN ANNE ["book iv. La.d. 1714 however, had been cast ; both parties were deliberately preparing for Civil War. The Whigs had recalled Marl borough, in the hope that the Army would rally to his side. Bolingbroke had handed over Scotland to the Jacobite Earl of Mar, and the Cinque Ports to the Jacobite Duke of Ormond. Anne's ' gouty humour was fast translating itself to the brain.' Had she held out a few days, the Popish Pretender would have been landed, and the game might have been won. But her unexpected death, on Sunday ist August, spoiled the plot. The Whig Dukes, Argyll and Somerset, had appeared at the Privy Council the day before, un- summoned ; and the Duke of Shrewsbury, though a member of the Ministry, voted on their side. The sudden collapse of the Queen, under a stroke of apoplexy, found the Jacobites unprepared. And so, the next heir to the throne by law, George, the Elector of Hanover, was ' that very day ' peace ably proclaimed as King. Thus passed away the last of the Stuart Sovereigns, on the eve of a ' Modern Reaction ' in . favour of Popery and Arbitrary Power, fostered by her own temperament, if not by her principles. She had some of the weaknesses, and not a few of the misfortunes of her race ; but the crowning misfortune was that, while sincerely, though somewhat bigotedly attached to the Protestant Religion, she weakly imperilled the Protestant Revolution. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vi. pp. 1367-1370 ; Green's S. H. ch. ix. sect. x. CHAPTER II THE GEORGES AND THE JACOBITES A.D. 1714 — 1760 WE enter now upon the Georgian Era. It extends from 1714 to 1830. When the first George comes upon the scene, the problems that agitate t men are still those of the Stuart Revolution. When the fourth George lays down the reins, we are in the heart of the Modern Age, Great Britain has become Greater Britain, and the interests of the Islands are the interests of the Empire. The proclamation of George I. took place at London on 1st August 1714, and announced 'that our right and lawful liege Lord, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland ' was this George Lewis, son of Ernest Augustus, first Elector of Brunswick-Lunenberg, by the Princess Sophia, granddaughter of James I. of England and VI. of Scotland. This was repeated at Edinburgh ; and on the 6th of August at Dublin.1 But, alas, we have a painful glimpse into the heart of the times, when we learn that on the 8th of the same month the Lords Justices of that unhappy country found themselves called upon to drown the jubilations, if such these were, by another proclamation 'for disarming Papists and seizing their horses.'2 Nor indeed was the turmoil much less in Great Britain itself. The Lords Justices there also made, on 5th August, an appeal to both Houses, saying :— ' With 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vii. p. 2. a Ibid. p. 3. VOL. I. 2 H 482 'THE WEE, WEE GERMAN LAIRDIE ' [book iv. La.d. 1 7 14 great earnestness we exhort you to a perfect unanimity and a firm adherence to our Sovereign's interest, as being the only means to continue amongst us our present happy Settlement' x George Rex sent back a reply to the 'Address ' from the Lords saying: — 'We are hastening to you from Hanover/ and protesting ' my constant care shall be to preserve your Religion, Laws, and Liberties inviolable, and to advance the honour and prosperity of my kingdoms.' 2 And on 1 2th August a proclamation was issued, offering a reward of £100,000 ' for the apprehension of the Popish Pretender/ if he attempted to land.3 Scotland burst into open disturbances ; and, while the Magistrates at Glasgow were proclaiming the new King, fifty persons there put on masks, pulled down 'the Episcopal Meeting-house/ and turned adrift ' Maister Cockburn with his English Liturgy ! ' 4 Such was the state of the Nation when this much-to-be- pitied George found himself making his entry into London on the 20th September ; a stranger among a strange people, hated by the masses as a Foreigner, respected only as the representative of certain Laws and Institutions dear to the country ; but, in every other regard, the prevalent feeling of the Nation was quite truthfully crystallised in the Jacobite song : — ' Wha the d eil hae we gotten for a King, But a wee, wee, German lairdie ! ' George had, however, one supreme capacity for the kind of Kingship wanted in that day, and he had no other. Being utterly destitute of ideas, or of force of character, he was content to be the figurehead, ' the Gentleman-Usher/ and to leave the Government of the Nation absolutely to the hands and the brains of those great Constitutional Ministers, whom circumstances now called to the front, and who ever since have ruled this country while the Sovereigns have only reigned. At least, where there has been any exception, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vii. p. 4. 2 Ibid. p. 5. 8 Ibid. p. 8. i Ibid. p. 15. chap. 11. J PROCLAMATION BY ' JAMES REX ' 483 as we shall see in the case of George III., the interference of the Crown ever since has invariably resulted in mischief if not disaster. Accordingly, it was very pretty in the new King to say in his first Privy Council, immediately after the Oaths : — ' I take this occasion also to express to you my firm purpose to do all that is in my power for the support and maintain ing of the Churches of England and Scotland, as they are severally by law established ; which I am of opinion may be effectually done, without the least impairing the toleration allowed by law to Protestant Dissenters, so agree able to Christian duty, and so necessary to the trade and riches of this kingdom.' x But the year was not allowed to pass away without a note of the coming strife ; for in November there began to be circulated throughout the country a proclamation signed ' James Rex ; ' in which, amongst other things, he threw a still darker suspicion on the policy of poor Queen Anne, by declaring ' that for some time past, he could not well doubt of his sister's good intentions towards him.'2 Without thinking too hardly of Anne, one may well believe all this. She could have little or no interest, any more than the country had, in ' gentleman-usher ' George ; and, if there were a drop of Stuart and Scottish blood in the Pretender's veins, she must have felt more kindly towards him. Indeed, amid the wreck and misery of that Royal race, there is an indirect compliment which they richly deserve, and which is not always paid to them. Had they sat more loosely to their rabid Papistry, had they imitated the easy conscience of Charles II. and even pretended to be Protestant, any one of them, Old Pretender or Young Pre tender, might have climbed up to the throne again, amidst the enthusiasm of the Nation, and with hundreds prepared to fight and die for them, for every ten that would have died 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vii. p. 18. 2 Ibid. p. 23. 484 FIRST JACOBITE RISING [book iv. 7 ^ La.d. 1715 for the Georges. That they refused to make this sign is one of the few remaining features of anything noble amidst their ruin ! 1 The Fifth Parliament of Great Britain assembled on the 17th March 1715 ; and its first session was lively in the extreme. A ' Committee of Secrecy' is soon plunging amidst the hottest politics of the time. Impeachments are brought in against Oxford, Bolingbroke, and Ormond. All the transactions of Harley and St. John during the years of the wars are travelled through, and they are accused of ' showing no regard to the solemn engagements to our old and faithful Allies, or to the common Liberties of Europe ;' but of being ' devoted to the service ' of the French King, the Popish interests, etc., etc. 2 The streets, however, rang with tumultuous cries in their favour, such as ' High Church ! ' ' Oxford and Ormond for ever ! ' 3 Thereon the Commons sent an address to the King, praying ' that the laws against Papists and Non-jurors may be effectually put into execu tion.' 4 But on 20th July, both Houses are called upon to listen to the King's announcement about the 'Invasion of the Pretender.' They reply that they ' will stand by and assist his Majesty at the hazard of lives and fortunes.'5 Bolingbroke and Ormond fled, and were ' attainted ' of High Treason. The ' practices of the Popish Pretender ' engrossed the daily attention of Parliament ; and six Members of the House of Commons were arrested, and charged with being 'engaged in the project to support his cause.' But the Jacobite Revolt of 171 5 (without a capable leader, for the Pretender was a sluggard and a bigot ; and without a principle, for the Highland Clans rallied round a name and nothing more) went to pieces in the grotesque fiasco of Sheriffmuir, with its ' we ran, and they ran ;' and in the Hansard's P. H. vol. vii. pp. 25-27. 2 md, p, 82. 3 Ibid. p. 107. 4 Ibid. p. 109. « Ibid. pp. m, 112. CHAP,A iap. n. "1 A ' POPISH ' PRETENDER 485 D. 1716J 7 J cowardly surrender of Preston, while James was seeking safety for his precious skin across the seas. It was hard lines that any one should lose his head for so poor a hero ! The men of that day, however, made no mistake as to the drift and meaning of the movement; and the King's Speech in reference to the rebellion, delivered to the Houses on 9th January 17 16, expressed the hope 'that this open and flagrant attempt in favour of Popery will abolish all other distinctions among us, but of such as are zealous asserters of the Liberties of their country, the present Establish ment, and the Protestant Religion, and of such as are endea vouring to subject the Nation to the revenge and tyranny of a Popish Pretender.' * Accordingly, the 'impeachment' of the Rebel Lords/ as they were called, seven in all, with Derwentwater at their head, accused them of an ' unnatural and horrid conspiracy to extirpate the true Protestant Religion, and introduce Popery and Arbitrary Power, ... to destroy the Protestant Interests of Europe as settled by William III. of ever glorious memory, ... to make way for the vain and ground less hopes of a spurious impostor and Popish Pretender, . . . to the dissolution of the late glorious confederacy against France and the loss of the balance of power in Europe, . . to seize the town of Preston in the county Palatine of Lan cashire, . . . and to imagine and compass the death of his sacred Majesty King George.' 2 The session, moreover, closed with one of the strongest bills that any Parliament ever proposed or carried. It was innocently enough described as a ' Bill to Strengthen the Protestant Interest in Great Britain by enforcing the Laws, now in being, against Papists ; ' but it actually turned out to be an Act to secure Septennial Parliaments.3 These members had been elected for three years ; but by their own vote they prolonged their authority for four years more. The majority 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vii. p. 225. 2 Ibid. pp. 238-243. 3 Ibid. pp. 292-379. 486 SEPTENNIAL VERSUS TRIENNIAL [book iv. La.d. 1716.34 in the House of Commons constituted the sheet-iron of the Government. The country was seething with disaffection. The bill recited the Act of the sixth year of William and Mary, constituting Parliaments ' triennial ; ' and then declared that it had been 'found by experience to be grievous and burthensome/ to be the occasion of ' great expense/ as well as of ' heats and animosities ; ' and concluded that it might, ' if continued, probably at this juncture, when a restless and Popish faction are designing and endeavouring to renew the rebellion within this Kingdom and the invasion from abroad, be destructive to the peace and security of the Government.' It was first carried by the Lords ; and finally, after great debates, it was passed by the Commons, with a majority of 264 votes against 121.1 That was in April 1716 ; and we shall find that, in April 1734, under another set of emergencies, many of the very same men voted and argued for the ' repeal of the Septennial ' and the ' restoration of the Triennial Act ; ' but on that later occasion they could muster only 184 votes against 247. And so the matter stands till the present day.2 The second session of this Parliament was opened on 20th February 1717, George having been absent for six months on the Continent, as came to be his custom, leaving the Prince of Wales behind as 'Guardian of the realm and Lieutenant of the Kingdoms.' 3 The King's Speech announced a new 'Alliance with France and the States- General/ one condition of which is 'that the Pretender is actually moved beyond the Alps ; ' where surely he would be beyond the reach of mischief, and his precious skin would be doubly secure ! But it glances reproachfully at ' the Gyllenburg and Gortz affair/ a threatened invasion from Sweden with simultaneous rebellion here ; and laments ' that an Act of Grace has been prevented by a faction again 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vii. p. 379. 2 Ibid. vol. ix. p. 479. 8 Ibid. vol. vii. p. 395. Tv^'iiij] SIR ISAAC NEWT0N 487 stirring up the Sovereign Powers/ — protesting indignantly that that faction would ' rather make Britain a scene of blood and confusion, and venture even the putting these Kingdoms under a Foreign yoke, than give over their darling design of imposing a Popish Pretender.' x The debates of this and of the next session, however, are full of the proposals of the ' South Sea Company/ and of the ' Bank of England/ as to ' the Public Debts.' The Acts passed thereanent in May 1717,2 include a clause for the creation of 'the Sinking Fund;' and, among the reports submitted during the third session,3 which opened in November of the same year, is one from a name that arrests our attention, — ' Sir Isaac Newton, Master of the Mint/ 4 concerning ' the state of the gold and silver coins.' It produces the effect of a queer anti-climax to come across the great philosopher calmly counting the Nation's coin amid all the Jacobite rebellions and political frenzies of the time. It was the fourth session of this same Parliament which witnessed the passing"of an Act entitled 'A Bill for Strength ening the Protestant Interest in these Kingdoms/ 5 to which we have already incidentally referred in our preceding chapter. It was introduced by Lord Stanhope on 13th December 17 18, and aimed at the repeal of the ' Occasional Conformity Act ' of the tenth year of Queen Anne, and also of the ' Schism Act ' of her twelfth year, as well as of several clauses in the ' Test and Corporation Acts.' He pleaded for ' the restoring of Dissenters to their natural rights, and easing them from stigmatising and oppressive laws.' He declared that this was ' the universal desire of all true Pro testants ; and, as it would certainly strengthen the Protestant Interest, so would it rather be an advantage than any pre judice to the Church of England as by law established ; 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vii. p. 396. " Ibid. pp. 454-472. 8 Ibid. p. 499. 4 Ibid. p. 525. 5 Ibid. p. 567. 488 CONFORMITY AND SCHISM ACTS [book iv. La.D; 1718-19 which would still be the head of all the Protestant Churches, and the Archbishop of Canterbury become the Patriarch of all the Protestant Clergy/1 The King had strongly shown his desire to remove all odious distinctions between Church men and Dissenters who were Protestants; but great and fierce debates ensued ; and it could be carried at last only by sacrificing ' the clauses derogatory to the Test and Corpora tion Acts.' 2 It required a whole century and more to wean the Church Party from their affection for these detestable statutes. The Commons passed the bill on 10th January 17 19, in a final vote of 221 to 170, and the 'Conformity Act' and ' Schism Act ' were swept into merited oblivion.3 The fifth session of this Fifth Parliament of Great Britain was opened on 23d November 1719, and prorogued on nth June 1720. Counsels of peace had began to prevail, and Europe was 'about to be delivered from the calamities of war by British arms and counsels.' 4 At home, Steele's assault in The Plebeian was answered by Addison in The Old Whig, who chaffed him merrily as ' little Dicky, whose trade it was to write pamphlets ! '6 But the first great event of the day was the 'Peerage Bill/ and for deep Constitutional reasons it demands brief notice even here. Last session a measure had been introduced into the House of Lords by the Duke of Somerset, enacting 'that the number of the Peerage should not be enlarged more than six above the present number in England, and that twenty-five Peers be hereditary in Scotland.' 6 But it had been dropped because of creating ' strange misapprehensions.' 7 In order to understand this movement we must go back for a moment to December 171 1, when the Queen, in order to secure a Government majority in the Lords, 'created'8 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vii. p. 568. 2 Ibid. pp. 581. 3 Ibid. p. 589. 4 Idid. p. 602. 6 Ibid. p. 606. 6 Ibid. p. 589. 7 Ibid. p. 594. 8 Ibid. vol. vi. pp. 1060- 1062. CHAP, A. IAP- "• 1 THE PEERAGE BILL 489 d. 1719-I • ^ twelve new Peers in a batch and seated them in the Upper House. This proceeding was then so unprecedented, and so resented by the old 'blue blood' Peers, that the Earl of Wharton asked them scornfully, at the first division that arose, — 'Whether they voted by their foreman} ' A very fine Aristocratic gibe ! And the feeling intensified, as numbers of new Peers were still being created by the Sovereign at the advice of one Ministry after another, to suit their political emergencies.1 Consequently, in November 17 19, the Lords again intro duced, passed, and sent to the Commons a new ' Act for the settling the Peerage of Great Britain.' It had been discussed with uncommon vehemence, — by the Earl of Sunderland among others, till, says Tindal, ' the blood gushed from his nose.' 2 It enacted that ' there should be no creation of Nobility, except when an old family became extinct' But Walpole saw at once the snake in the grass. Had that bill passed there would have remained no power in the State by which the Peers could have been forced to bow to the will of the Commons ; in fact, the Supreme Power would have thereby passed into the hands of the Upper House. The ' Norfolk squire and fox-hunter ' scented his game, and raised such an outcry as had not been heard since the Revolution days. He stormed the House with the fieriest speech he ever delivered, — maintaining ' that the honours of the Peerage were the Constitutional reward of great qualities and actions only, in the service of the Commonwealth, and to be kept open for that purpose.' And, having poured out all his vials of wrath on the promoters, he closed with this gigantic scoff: — ' Hitherto the usual path to the Temple of Honour had been through the Temple of Virtue ; but, by this bill, it was now to be only through the sepulchre of a dead ancestor, without either merit or fame ! ' 3 The measure was rejected by the Commons with the 1 Hansard's/". H. vol. vii. pp. 606-609. "Ibid. p. 607. s Ibid. p. 623. 490 PEERS FROM TUDORS TO GEORGES [book iv. La.d. 1719 swinging majority of 269 to 177. And, looking back, there is little doubt that thereby the House of Peers has been saved from the destruction which it would have unwittingly brought upon itself, and which has befallen the Upper House in many other countries. Towards the close of that same century, the statesman-soul of William Pitt saw the issues, and deliberately set himself to make the Upper Chamber representative of the material and intellectual prosperity of Britain, and no longer merely of so-called ' blood ' — often, alas, the poorest and most polluted in the Kingdom ! The Peers under Elizabeth were not over sixty in number, under the Stuarts not more than one hundred and sixty-eight. During five years under Pitt, fifty new Peers had been created ; in the years 1796 and 1797, there were created thirty-five more ; and by the year 1 801, he had added in all one hundred and forty-one members to the House of Lords. At the close of the reign of George III., the hereditary Peers had been actually doubled in number since his accession to the throne ! They came from every class in the Nation, which produced men of outstanding distinction. The fountains of the Old Aristocracy were freshened by an inflow of brain power and of healthy blood from the most distinguished families of the commercial and professional Middle Classes — the Aristocracy of intelligence and of wealth. Thus, more than by any other single means, has the Nobility of Britain escaped the suspicion and ill-will that have dogged, if not destroyed, the privileged and exclusive Aristocracies in other nations.1 For the next eighteen months the whole Nation was kept in a state approaching social lunacy by the ' South Sea Company/ and its overwhelming consequences. Neither Pope nor Pretender occupied a moment's thought or care. In January 1720 we find Parliament passing bills accepting the Company's grand proposals ' for reducing the National Debts.' 2 Countless gold was to be coined out of business on 1 Green's S. H. ch. x. sect, iv, 2 Hansard's P. H. vol. vii. p. 628. chap. n. 1 'BUBBLES' 491 A.D. I720J ^* the Spanish-American coasts, Chili and Peru. The directors asked for one million shares to be taken up : two millions were instantly subscribed for. The value of the stock rose from two hundred and ninety to four hundred. By-and-bye, about the end of June, by the manipulations of the stock jobbers, the original stock had risen above £1000 per cent. ; and the whole Nation went mad with the fever of speculation, ' from the Prince of Wales downwards.' J The infatuation became positively ludicrous. A company was launched, 'for carrying on an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is ; ' half a million would be needed, two guineas to be paid down, £100 per annum to be received on every £100 subscribed ; in a month the particulars of the project were to be laid open and the subscriptions to be paid in full. In a single forenoon, the projector received one thousand subscriptions ; but, in the afternoon, when inquiries were being made, he had decamped with his two thousand guineas ! 2 ' Bubble Companies/ scarcely a whit more rational than this, were palmed on the public to the number of one hundred and more. After the rising of Parliament, Ministers struck a blow against them through the King's Proclama tion : — 'That these unlawful projects be deemed as common nuisances with a penalty of £500 for buying or selling shares in them ; ' and roundly declaring ' that they are promoted by crafty knaves, pursued by covetous fools, and at last appeared to be nothing but bubbles and cheats.' 3 And, on 1 2th July, the Lords Justices, ignominiously dismissing all the 'petitions' still pending before them for patents and charters, put their brand publicly upon these schemes and all their abettors. 4 The Bank of England had already ' withdrawn its con tract/ and the inevitable crash could not long be averted. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vii. p. 652. 2 Ibid. p. 662. 3 Ibid. p. 654. 4 Ibid- P- 655- 492 CRASH OF SOUTH SEA COMPANY Tbook iv. LA.D. 1720 The South Sea Company's stock went down to £200 ! All the smaller ' bubbles ' were exploded by the blast of its fall. In vain the stock-holders disputed, and complained ' that the Directors, having had cream for themselves, would now give the proprietors sour-milk V 1 In vain the ' Committee of Secrecy ' brought in to the House of Commons no less than seven detailed 'Reports on the South Sea Directors/ In vain petitions poured upon the table for 'justice on the authors of the present calamities.' In vain the more sympa thetic members introduced and debated ' South Sea Sufferers' Bills.' In vain did a ' tumultuous concourse of annuitants ' clamour for vengeance in the lobbies of the House. Almost every family in the land, that had anything to risk, had risked it and lost it ; and the Houses of Parliament had at last to content themselves with indorsing the drastic declar ation : — ' That nothing can tend more to the Public Credit than preventing the infamous practice of stock-jobbing: '2 The old chronicler, in dismissing the subject, moralises : — 'Thus in eight months ... a mighty fabric wound up by mysterious springs to a wonderful height ... its foundations being fraud, illusion, credulity, and infatuation, fell to the ground.' 3 And the streets were soon ringing with a popular melody, called ' the South Sea Ballad/ or ' Merry remarks on Exchequer Alley Bubbles/ to the new tune ' The Grand Elixir ; ' but if these lines are a fair specimen, you must seek for what is ' merry ' in the tune and not in the words :— ' Longheads may thrive by sober rules, Because they think and drink not ; But Headlongs are our thriving fools, Who only drink and think not. The lucky rogues, like spaniel dogs, Leap into South Sea water ; And there they fish for golden frogs, Not caring what comes after 1 ' 4 If we must apologise to our readers for touching upon 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vii. 662. • 2 Ibid. p. 689. 3 Ibid. p. 678. 4 Ibid. p. 659. chap. ii. "] QUAKERS AND PRETENDERS 493 A.D. 1722J ^*J these, and so many other side issues, let them know that, without such glimpses into the inner spirit and the social movements of the time, we find it impossible fully to under stand or fairly to explain to them the deeper and more serious questions of Policy whose history we are tracing. What a light, for instance, falls on many things, — when we enter the House of Lords in the seventh and last session of this Parliament in January 1722, and find the Bishop of Rochester, Francis Atterbury, in opposing the ' Quakers' Affirmation Bill/ declare that 'they were a set of people who were hardly Christians;' and that 'the calling of Quakers Christians by Act of Parliament, as if they were included under the name of Protestant Dissenters by the Toleration Act, was a sort of side wind reflection upon Christianity itself J What a long road the public mind, and even the Episcopal mind, has travelled since then ! In the autumn of that same year, October 1722, the Sixth Parliament of Great Britain assembled, and we im mediately find ourselves breathing a tainted atmosphere. The King's Speech bewails ' another dangerous conspiracy in favour of the Popish Pretender,'2 and he indignantly protests: — ' To hope to persuade a Free People, in the full enjoyment of all that is dear and valuable to them, to exchange Freedom for Slavery, the Protestant Religion for Popery, and to sacrifice at once the price of so much blood and treasure as have been spent in defence of our present Establishments, seems an infatuation not to be accounted for.' 3 And finally he confidently proclaims : — ' Let it be known that the spirit of Popery, which breathes nothing but confusion to the civil and religious rights of a Protestant Church and Kingdom, however abandoned some few may be in despite of all obligations divine and human, has not so far possessed my people as to make them ripe for such a fatal change.' 4 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. vii. p. 937- 2 Ibid- vo1- viii- P- 25' 3 Ibid. p. 26, * Mid. p. 27. 494 'A TAX UPON PAPISTS' [book iv. J Ia.d. 1722 It was in connection with this conspiracy that the Duke of Norfolk was ' committed on suspicion ; ' and the Bishop of Rochester, Francis Atterbury, who so reviled the Quakers, was ' arrested.' 1 Doubtless the popular rage created thereby strengthened Walpole's hands in proposing and carrying an extraordinary measure of financial retaliation, — an additional tax of ' fivepence in the pound on the estates of all Roman Catholics and Non-jurors.' He first mooted this, in his proposal as to ways and means for raising the ' new Supply/ and justified himself in the following vigorous strain : — ' It could not be thought either unjust or unreasonable, con sidering the ill use they made of the savings out of their incomes, which most of them laid out in maintaining the Pretender and his adherents abroad, and in fomenting sedition and rebellion at home.'2 On 23d November, when it came up for debate in the form of '£100,000 to be levied on the Papists on account of their recusancy/ the Sir Wilfrid Lawson of that day objected ' that it would carry the face of persecution.' 3 But Sir William Thompson resolutely replied, — ' Persecution was when any one was punished for his parti cular opinion in Religion, and for serving God according to that opinion and the dictates of his conscience ; but that was not the case here, for the extra tax, now intended to be raised upon the Papists, was not a punishment for their being Roman Catholics, but on account of penalties they had at divers times incurred, for being enemies to the Civil Govern ment, raising rebellions, and contriving plots against the State.' 4 And when finally the ' Bill for laying a Tax upon Papists and Non-jurors' was ordered to be brought in, the great Whig Minister delivered himself thus : — ' Who does not know the great dangers this Nation hath been in, ever since the Reformation, from the constant endeavours of Papists to 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. viii. p. 44. 2 Ibid. p. 47. 3 Ibid. p. 51. 4 Ibid, p. 52. chap. ii. "] RESOLUTIONS ON THE PRETENDER 495 a.d. 1722J ^'J subvert our happy Constitution and the Protestant Religion, by the most cruel, violent, and unjustifiable methods ? . . . It was notorious to the whole world that many of them had been engaged in the Preston Rebellion, and some were executed for the same ; that the present Plot was contrived at Rome and countenanced in Popish countries ; that many of the Papists were not only well-wishers, but had contributed large sums of money towards carrying it on ; and therefore, he thought, it was very reasonable, since they made such ill use of the savings of the incomes of their estates, that the same should go towards the great expense to which the Nation had been put by them and the Pretender's friends.' x These measures, and the spirit that underlay them, can be better judged of, when we remember that, at the very time of such discussions, a ' Declaration ' by the Pretender, calling himself 'James HI.' and signed James Rex, was being scattered far and wide, addressed 'to all his loving subjects.' The Lords dissected it, ordered it to be burned by the common hangman, and passed a ' resolution/ declaring ' that it was a false and insolent and traitorous libel, ... of the highest indignity to his sacred Majesty King George, and injurious to the honour of the British Nation, . . . imagining that a Free Protestant People . . . can be so infatuated as ... to hear of any terms from a Popish bigoted Pretender.' The Commons concurred, voted the needful supplies, and again renewed their pledge of ' lives and fortunes.' 2 Several months later, May 1723, we find the Houses still busy with 'Reports on the Conspiracy/ and coming to a ' resolution ' that a ' determined and horrid conspiracy has been carried on by persons of figure and distinction.'3 Great debates rage round the name of the Bishop of Rochester ; and the Commons, in an 'address to the King/ scorn fully denounce him as 'in favour of the Popish fugi- 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. viii. p. 52. 5 Ibid. pp. 49, 50. 8 Ibid. p. 195. 496 WALPOLE'S SUPREMACY [book iv. Ia.d. 1727 tive, known only for his blind bigotry and attachment to Rome!'1 In the second, third," fourth, and fifth sessions of this Parliament, there is nothing very specifically bearing on our theme. When the last was duly prorogued, the King, as usual, started for the Continent. But another traveller over took him on the journey to Havre ; he became ill by the way, and died on nth June 1727. So the Gentleman-Usher King was ceremoniously laid to rest amongst his own ancestors ; and leaves behind him the distinction of having shown, nearly to perfection, how a man may wear a crown and yet be an absolute nullity.2 From the arms of ' the Gentleman-Usher/ the first of the Georges, we pass into the embrace of George II., ' the Drill- Serjeant/ who in turn was 'ruled by his wife, Caroline of Anspach.' Parliament at once assembled (under the pro visions of 4 and 5 Queen Anne, c. 8),3 — being empowered to continue for six months after the Sovereign's death, ' unless prorogued or dissolved by the heir to the Crown.' And on 27th June 1727, the new King declared in his 'Speech' to both Houses, 'that he would preserve the Constitution of this Kingdom, as it is now happily established in Church and State, inviolable in all its parts.' 4 So far as our present objects are concerned, we might pass over the Seventh Parliament of Great Britain without a single note, though it lasted from the autumn of 1728 till the spring of 1734. These were the years of Walpole's supremacy. The Whigs and the Revolution principles were scarcely seriously challenged. Questions of finance held the first place in almost all Parliamentary debates. But the titles of other subjects brought under discussion reveal to us the new world that was opening up and the old that was passing away. The first session,5 for instance, had 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. viii. p. 200. 2 Ibid. p. 572. 8 Ibid. p. 594. 4 Ibid. p. 595. 5 Ibid. pp. 607-667. CHAP. II A. iap.ii. "] REVOLUTION PRINCIPLES UNCHALLENGED 497 D. 1728-34J ^-" thoughts for little else than ' National Debt,' ' Sinking Fund/ and 'Public Credit' The second, 1729, is engrossed with 'Provisional Treaties of Peace and Commerce/ 'Subsidies to Foreign Princes,' 'Reports on the Gaols/ revealing the infernal horrors of the Fleet Prison and the Marshalsea, and winds up with the 'Treaty of Seville' and Europe at peace.1 In the third session, 1730, besides more 'Prison Reports/ we have the great debates on a ' Bill for prohibiting Loans to Foreign Powers/ and on ' the Pension Bill/ the object of the latter being ' to disable from being Members of the House all persons who have any pensions or any offices held in trust for them from the Crown.'2 The fourth session, 1731, is again busy with the ' Pension Bill/ which the Lords again firmly reject, and also with an ' English Language Law Bill/ suggestive of many reflections to the student of our mother tongue.3 With the fifth session ominous proposals come into view, ' for the better securing and encouraging the trade of his Majesty's Sugar Colonies in America ; ' and ugly revelations are made regarding ' the fraudulent sale of the Derwentwater estates.4 The sixth session, 1733, is largely occupied with ' the greatest debate since the Revolution,' on 'Walpole's New Excise/ subjecting wine, tobacco, etc., to assessment, simplifying all other taxes, abolishing petty and numerous imposts, leaving untaxed the necessaries of life and raw materials of manufacture, and ' making this Island one great general Free Port for the world ; ' 5 he carried it by a masterly speech of two hours and a half, but the uproar in the country was so tremendous that the second reading had to be 'postponed.'6 While the seventh session, 1734, largely taken up with the new,' War in Europe/ found time also to discuss, and to refuse to repeal, after a great debate, the ' Septennial Act/ to which we have referred on a former page.7 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. viii. pp. 668-763. 2 Ibid. pp. 764-830. 3 Ibid. pp. 830-863. 4 Ibid. pp. 915-1167. 6 Ibid. pp. 1194-1313. 6 Ibid. vol. ix. pp. 1-8. 7 Ibid. pp. 231, 394-479. VOL. I. 2 1 498 SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS [book iv. La.d. 1735-36 Nor are we called upon to dilate at any greater length upon the Eighth Parliament and its affairs, which was opened in January 1735, and continued to sit till April 1741. The first session debated a great variety of themes, — 'the General Peace/ 'the number of Seamen/ 'the Play-house Bill — to restrain the number of Houses, and for the better regulating of the common players of Interludes/ ' the main tenance and settlement of the Poor/ and the petition from the Church of Scotland relating to Patronage.' 1 In the second session, 1736, matters became a little livelier. There is, for instance, a notable petition from the Justices of the Peace of Middlesex ' against the excessive use of Spirituous Liquors.' They complain ' that the drinking of Geneva and other distilled Spirituous Liquors had for some years past greatly increased, especially among the people of inferior rank.' (Query — What about Walpole? 'Drunk again.') ' That the constant and excessive use thereof had already destroyed thousands of his Majesty's subjects, and rendered great numbers of others unfit for useful labour and service, debauching at the same time their morals and driving them into all manner of vice and wickedness.' A Committee of the whole House found, by resolution, 'that the low price is a principal inducement/ that the extra 'duty to be laid on will be a discouragement,' and that the sellers ought to be limited to licensed persons'2 and to 'surgeon druggists or vendors of medicines.' These recommendations were agreed to unanimously ; but we shall soon see how ludicrously futile such straws were to stem this tide ! This year also was launched the first motion for the ' Repeal of the Test Act/ by Mr. Plumer, seconded by the Sir Wilfred Lawson and the Lord Polwarth of that earlier day, but opposed by Walpole though 'somewhat cautiously.'3 He might have been less cautious, could he have guessed 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ix. pp. 615-968. 2 Ibid. pp. 1032, 1033. 3 Ibid. p. 1046. ™AP;7I1g 8] PITT'S' MAIDEN SPEECH 499 what a long journey that innocent motion had yet to go! But, politically speaking, the great event of this session was the ' maiden speech ' of the elder William Pitt, the future Earl of Chatham. It was in connection with the con gratulatory address to Frederick Lewis, the Prince of Wales, on the occasion of his marriage to the Princess of Saxe- Gotha, the sister to the Duke. It emphasised the fact of 'the promise of additional strength to the Protestant suc cession in his Majesty's illustrious and Royal House.' The speech of Pitt produced an immense impression ; and Tindal at once matches it with the highest in all literature, by coolly informing us ' that it was more ornamented than Demosthenes, and less diffused than Cicero!'1 The world, at least, seems at once to have felt that a new and immeasure- able force had entered into political life. And, if readers long in vain for those masterpieces of eloquent and reasoned address, they may understand the loss all the better, and contrast that age with this, when we remind them that this very Parliament busied itself, like others before it, in stemming back for a season the torrent of the reporters, before whom all barriers public or private have at last given way. It was on 13th April 1738 that they passed nem. con. a ' resolution ' declaring it to be a ' high indignity and notorious breach of privilege/ for any ' News- Writer in Letters or in other Papers ... to presume to insert . . . the debates or other proceedings of this House.'2 The day had not yet arrived when ' to be reported/ fully and fairly, became the ' laurel crown ' of public life ! The fourth and fifth sessions we pass without note, not even being tempted to turn aside by 'the Button and Button-hole Bill' of 1738, in connection with 'the raw silk and mohair and needlework button manufactures ; ' 3 nor by 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. ix. pp. 1220-1222. 2 Ibid. vol. x. pp. 800-812. 8 Ibid. p. 7«7- 500 WANING OF WALPOLE'S POWER [book iv. La.d. 1739-41 the spicy debate on, and censure of Paul Whitehead's satire on Manners, in 1739, intended, indirectly, to intimidate that stinging and poisonous wasp, Alexander Pope.1 In the sixth session, 1739-1740, we see the waning of the power of 'the greatest finance and peace Minister' whom these Islands had as yet produced, Robert Walpole. Formerly 'digested colleagues/ of whom there were not a few in his long reign of one-and-twenty years, such as Townshend and Chesterfield, now joined by the younger Whigs whom he called rather contemptuously ' the boys/ were triumphantly led on by the rising star of William Pitt. The 'famous Jenkins' had appeared 'with his ear in his hand' before the House of Commons in 1738, and given them ocular demon stration of how it was ' sliced off by the Spaniards ! ' The popular frenzy against Spain at last took possession of Parliament too ; and Walpole found himself forced in 1739 to declare war against that country 'for its repeated violences and depredations.' 2 It was entirely against his will and his better judgment ; and when the Londoners rejoiced at the event, Walpole bitterly retorted : — ' They are now ringing their bells, they will soon be wringing their hands ! ' 3 He did not wait long for the fulfilment of his prophecy; for in the seventh session, 1740-41, the 'Scarcity of Corn ' debates fill nearly all the vision ; famine is pro ducing ' riots ' throughout the country ; and his Majesty is exhorted, and specially empowered, to place an ' embargo ' on the exportation of corn and other provisions.4 Great events, however, again crowd upon us in the Ninth Parliament of Great Britain, and to these we hasten forward. It assembled in December 1741, and continued its sittings till June 1747. The general election turned upon 'the conduct of the war.' 6 Walpole, being defeated, was created 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. x. p. 1325. 2 Ibid. vol. xi. pp. 1-97. 3 Green's i'. H. ch. ix. sect. a. 4 Hansard's P. H. vol. xi. pp. 612-845. 5 Ibid. vol. xii. p. 188. AHD^Pi74'i-44^ POPISH PRETENDER AGAIN 501 Earl of Orford, and retired,— only to find himself faced with a ' Committee of Inquiry into the Affairs of the last Twenty Years/ x and the table of Parliament loaded with ' Reports on the Earl of Orford/ during the remainder of the first session of 1742.2 The second session, 1742-1743, was rendered notable by the revival of the 'Spirituous Liquors Bill' and the increase of duties ' on Liquors and Licences/ to stem, if might be, the overwhelming tide of Intemperance. It was at this time, according to Smollett, that the following advertisement might be frequently seen in the windows of publictaverns: — 'NOTICE. Drunk for id.; Dead Drunk for 2d.; and Straw for Nothing? The third session, the fourth, the fifth, and the sixth, December 1743 to June 1747, are ringing with references to one whom they call the ' Young Pretender ;' and of whom the romantic among the Scotch have sung ever since, — ' Prince Charlie is my darling.' As early as February 1744 Parlia ment was discussing 'an insolent and desperate projected invasion by the Pretender's eldest son now in France.' Both Houses united in an ' Address ' to the King, in which they bravely declare : — ' Every interest and every motive, that can warm or engage the hearts of Britons and Pro testants, call upon us to exert our utmost endeavours, that by the blessing of God your enemies may be put to con fusion.' And they conclude with the loyal and solemn oath, 'We will support and defend your Majesty, and the Pro testant Succession in your royal House, in opposition to, and in defiance of the Pretender and all his adherents, and all other your Majesty's enemies.'4 And finally the right key-note was struck, in all public and Parliamentary utter ances on this affair, by always describing it in these suggestive terms : — ' The Invasion of this Kingdom designed to be made by France in favour of a Popish Pretender/ 5 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. xii. pp. 403, 44^. 2 Ibid. pp. 5S6, 628, 734, 788. 3 Ibid. p. 1 191. 4 Ibid. vol. xiii. pp. 642, 651. 6 Ibid. p. 666. 502 PRINCE CHARLIE'S ESCAPADE [book iv. La.d. 1744-45 In March, war was declared first by France against Britain, and then by Britain against France.1 The Lords proclaimed, ' that the Invasion of this Kingdom by France in favour of a Popish abjured Pretender/ has raised in them ' the utmost resentment and abhorrence.' 2 It was decreed to be ' treason to hold any correspondence with the Pre tender's sons.'3 Lord Carteret protested 'that neither justice nor religion had anything to do iii the present question ; that it was merely a political question, and that the sole con sideration was what is most safe or convenient for society.'4 Parliament, however, and the country at large refused for a moment to admit that ' Religion ' had nothing to do with it ; to them it was the old conflict renewed, Popery and Arbitrary Power versus Protestantism and Freedom. The Standard of Charles Edward had been raised in August 1745, amongst the Clans at Glenfinnan. He had proclaimed ' King James vill. ' at the Cross of Edinburgh. He had routed and reduced to ridicule the English Army at Prestonpans ; hence our ' Hey, Johnny Cope, are ye wa'uken yet?' to be sung in mockery through all after times. His 6000 greedy and ferocious Highlanders had rushed through Lancashire and on to Derby. But the English Jacobites showed no signs of response, and the mad escapade could therefore have only one end. Charles fell back on Glasgow, and, considerably reinforced, routed once more the English Army under Hawley at Falkirk on 23d January 1746. But the undisciplined Clansmen scattered with the booty to their hills ; and Charles was driven further and further northwards by the disciplined forces of the Duke of Cumberland. Then came the butchery of Culloden Moor, on the 16th April, where less than 6000 starving, half- armed, and dispirited men vainly rushed on more than double their number of well-fed, well-armed, victorious troops, 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. xiii. p. 6S3. 2 Ibid. p. 695. 8 Ibid. p. 704. 4 Ibid. p. 739. CHAP A. ^^745.46] , JUDICIAL REVENGES 503 backed up ahd protected by deadly guns. It was a "mere bloody-shambles scene rather than a battle ; and the name of 'Butcher' Cumberland still lingers on the lips of the people of the North. The 'judicial vengeance' taken thereafter breathed the same spirit. Fifty of the leaders were hanged. Three Lords of Scotland went to the block — Lovat, Balmerino, and Kil marnock. Forty others were attainted. Fifty were hanged in England. Feudal tenures were abolished in the High lands, the jurisdiction of the chiefs was transferred henceforth to the Crown, and even the tartan was forbidden by law to be any longer worn ! There was, indeed, romantic folly and rebellion in the ' Forty-Five/ as it is still popularly called ; but there was certainly something very like bloodthirsty revenge in the fury with which its misguided dupes were danced upon and torn to pieces.1 Still, no fault whatever can be found with the words or the tone of the 'King's Speech/ referring to the Jacobite Revolt in the fifth session of this Ninth Parliament as 'the open and unnatural rebellion in Scotland/ and as 'the wicked and daring attempt in favour of a Popish Pretender to my Crown.'2 Well and justly might he and his Ministers exclaim : — ' It is astonishing that any of my Protestant sub jects, who have enjoyed the benefits resulting from the Laws of this land and the rule of my Government, and have heard of the imminent dangers those Kingdoms were wonderfully delivered from by the happy Revolution, should, by any arts and management, be deluded into measures that must at once destroy their Religion and Liberties, introduce Popery and Arbitrary Power, and subject this Kingdom to a Foreign yoke.'3 Nor did the ' Address in Reply ' trespass beyond the facts of the case when it denounced this 'so wicked, traitorous, 1 Green's 5. H. ch. x. sect. i. 2 Hansards P. H. vol. xiii. p. 1310. 3 Ibid. p. 1311. 504 POPERY NECESSITATES TYRANNY [B°0K IV- „„ D ^ La.d. 1745-53 and desperate an attempt ' in favour of a ' Popish Pretender to your Crown.'1 And Mr. Henry Legge only drove home the true and final issue in a popular and telling way when he exclaimed in the House of Commons : — ' The question is not simply whether we shall have this Royal Family or that, be subjects of a Free Government or slaves of an Absolute Government, Papist or Protestant ; but whether we shall be freeborn Englishmen or French slaves?'2 By the 1 2th of August, Mr. Speaker Onslow was presenting an ' Address ' to the King, ' congratulating him on the success against the rebels.' He proudly referred to the Commons so ' freely subscribing ' for the suppression of the revolt raised in favour of a ' Popish and abjured Pretender, encouraged and assisted by your Majesty's foreign and declared enemies/3 and he formulated all the reasons that swayed them into the burning focus of this single sentence : — ' Because we are fully persuaded that a Popish Prince must become a Tyrant in a Protestant Country! 4 The next two Parliaments, extending between them over a period of more than thirteen years, from November 1747 to March 1761, contribute, as nearly as possible, absolutely nothing to the present discussion. In the Tenth Parliament of Great Britain, we still hear echoes of the 'Jacobite Rising' so ruthlessly suppressed ; for example, debates about 'disarming' the Highlands, and 'restraining' the use of the ' Highland dress;'5 also, about reimbursing Glasgow to the tune of £10,000 'for losses during the Rebellion.' 6 The curious may further like to note that we have, in 175 1, an 'Act for Regulating the Commencement of the Year, and for Correcting the Calendar now in use ; ' r and in 1753, 'A Bill for Registering the Number of the People/8 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. xiii. p. 1326. 2 Ibid. p. 1330. 8 Ibid. p. 1419. 4 Ibid. p. 1421. s Ibid. vol. xiv. p. 269. 6 Ibid. p. 497. 7 Ibid. p. 980. 8 Ibid. p. 1317-1365. A^rfVsi-eo] GEORGE THE DRILL-SERJEANT 505 which was passed by the Commons, but thrown out by the Lords. In the Eleventh Parliament the 'victories against the French in North America' fill the King's Speeches, session after session, till, finally, November 1759, we learn of 'the defeat of the French in Canada, and the reduction of their capital city of Quebec'1 Again, in 1755, we find them busying themselves with a report of the ' Great Earthquake at Lisbon/ which ' began at three-quarters past nine in the morning, and lasted near seven minutes, and in which ten thousand lives were lost.' They voted, for relief of the misery, £ioo,ooo.2 But our theme will not permit us to dally with side issues however interesting. We have but, therefore, in closing this section, to record that/on 25th October 1760, George H. 'fell dead on the floor of his Palace, at Kensington, from rupture of the heart' And, to show how varied and how unreliable are the estimates of men, it is enough for us to learn that ' the deceased deserved to be numbered among the greatest and best of Princes/ according to the once famous Dr. Chandler ; whereas, according to Lord Chesterfield, he was a shining instance of 'the Royal dignity shrunk into the Electoral pride!'3 Courtiers may say or write what they will, but it has been found as impossible for posterity as it was for contemporaries — nay, a great deal more so — to kindle any vivid personal emotion either of love or of hate towards the one or the other of these imported Kings, — George 'the Gentleman- Usher' or George 'the Drill-Serjeant' 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. xv. p. 948. 2 Ibid. p. 543. 3 Ibid. pp. 972, 978. Printed by T. and A. Constable, Printers to Her Majcstj at the Edinburgh University Press. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 08954 4309 rv- i •;•• yi •• •./¦• . y * "2