Constitutional History of England Volume II Part 26

217.

[588] _Life of Clarendon_, 147. He observes that the alterations made did not reduce one of the opposite party to the obedience of the church. Now, in the first place, he could not know this; and, in the next, he conceals from the reader that, on the whole matter, the changes made in the liturgy were more likely to disgust than to conciliate. Thus the puritans having always objected to the number of saints' days, the bishops added a few more; and the former having given very plausible reasons against the apocryphal lessons in the daily service, the others inserted the legend of Bel and the Dragon, for no other purpose than to show contempt of their scruples. The alterations may be seen in Rennet's _Register_, 585. The most important was the restoration of a rubric inserted in the communion service under Edward VI., but left out by Elizabeth, declaring against any corporal presence in the Lord's supper. This gave offence to some of those who had adopted that opinion, especially the Duke of York, and perhaps tended to complete his alienation from the Anglican church. Burnet, i. 183.

[589] 13 and 14 Car. 2, c. iv. -- 3.

[590] _Life of Clarendon_, 152; Burnet, 256. Morley, afterwards Bishop of Winchester, was engaged just before the restoration in negotiating with the presbyterians. They stuck out for the negative voice of the council of presbyters, and for the validity of their ordinations.

_Clar. State Papers_, 727. He had two schemes to get over the difficulty; one to pa.s.s them over _sub silentio_; the other, a hypothetical re-ordination, on the supposition that something might have been wanting before, as the church of Rome practises about re-baptization. The former is a curious expedient for those who pretended to think presbyterian ordinations really null. _Id._ 738.

[591] The day fixed upon suggested a comparison which, though severe, was obvious. A modern writer has observed on this, "They were careful not to remember that the same day, and for the same reason, because the t.i.thes were commonly due at Michaelmas, had been appointed for the former ejectment, when four times as many of the loyal clergy were deprived for fidelity to their sovereign." Southey's _Hist. of the Church_, ii. 467. That the day was chosen in order to deprive the inc.u.mbent of a whole year's t.i.thes, Mr. Southey has learned from Burnet; and it aggravates the cruelty of the proceeding--but where has he found his precedent? The Anglican clergy were ejected for refusing the covenant at no one definite period, as, on recollection, Mr. S.

would be aware; nor can I find any one parliamentary ordinance in Husband's Collection that mentions St. Bartholomew's day. There was a precedent indeed in that case, which the government of Charles did not choose to follow. One-fifth of the income had been reserved for the dispossessed inc.u.mbents.

[592] Journals, April 26. This may perhaps have given rise to a mistake we find in Neal, 624, that the act of uniformity only pa.s.sed by 186 to 180. There was no division at all upon the bill except that I have mentioned.

[593] The report of the conference (Lords' Journals, 7th May) is altogether rather curious.

[594] Lords' Journals, 25th and 27th July 1663; Ralph, 58.

[595] Neal, 625-636. Baxter told Burnet, as the latter says (p. 185), that not above 300 would have resigned, had the terms of the king's declaration been adhered to. The blame, he goes on, fell chiefly on Sheldon. But Clarendon was charged with entertaining the presbyterians with good words, while he was giving way to the bishops. See also p.

268. Baxter puts the number of the deprived at 1800. _Life_, 384. And it has generally been reckoned about 2000; though Burnet says it has been much controverted. If indeed we can rely on Calamy's account of the ejected ministers, abridged by Palmer under the t.i.tle of _The Nonconformist's Memorial_, the number must have been full 2400.

Kennet, however (_Register_, 807), notices great mistakes of Calamy in respect only to one diocese, that of Peterborough. Probably both in this collection, and in that of Walker on the other side, as in all martyrologies, there are abundant errors; but enough will remain to afford memorable examples of conscientious suffering; and we cannot read without indignation Rennet's endeavours, in the conclusion of this volume, to extenuate the praise of the deprived presbyterians by captious and unfair arguments.

[596] See Clarendon's feeble attempt to vindicate the king from the charge of breach of faith. 157.

[597] A list of these, published in 1660, contains more than 170 names. Neal, 590.

[598] Sir Kenelm Digby was supposed to be deep in a scheme that the catholics, in 1649, should support the commonwealth with all their power, in return for liberty of religion. Carte's _Letters_, i. 216 _et post_. We find a letter from him to Cromwell in 1656 (Thurloe, iv.

591) with great protestations of duty.

[599] See Lords' Journals, June and July 1661, or extracts from them in Kennet's _Register_, 469, etc., 620, etc., and 798, where are several other particulars worthy of notice. Clarendon, 143, explains the failure of this attempt at a partial toleration (for it was only meant as to the exercise of religious rites in private houses) by the persevering opposition of the Jesuits to the oath of allegiance, to which the lay catholics, and generally the secular priests, had long ceased to make objection. The house had voted that the indulgence should not extend to Jesuits, and that they would not alter the oaths of allegiance or supremacy. The Jesuits complained of the distinction taken against them; and a.s.serted, in a printed tract (Kennet, _ubi supra_), that since 1616 they had been inhibited by their superiors from maintaining the pope's right to depose sovereigns. See also Butler's _Mem. of Catholics_, ii. 27; iv. 142; and Burnet, i. 194.

[600] The suspicions against Charles were very strong in England before the restoration, so as to alarm his emissaries: "Your master,"

Mordaunt writes to Ormond, Nov. 10, 1659, "is utterly ruined as to his interest here in whatever party, if this be true." Carte's _Letters_, ii. 264, and _Clar. State Papers_, iii. 602. But an anecdote related in Carte's _Life of Ormond_, ii. 255, and Harris's _Lives_, v. 54, which has obtained some credit, proves, if true, that he had embraced the Roman catholic religion as early as 1659, so as even to attend ma.s.s. This cannot be reckoned out of question; but the tendency of the king's mind before his return to England is to be inferred from all his behaviour. Kennet (_Complete Hist. of Eng._ iii. 237) plainly insinuates that the project for restoring popery began at the treaty of the Pyrenees; and see his _Register_, p. 852.

[601] 13 Car. 2, c. 1.

[602] Burnet, i. 179.

[603] _Life of Clarendon_, 159. He intimates that this begot a coldness in the bishops towards himself, which was never fully removed. Yet he had no reason to complain of them on his trial. See, too, Pepys's _Diary_, Sept. 3, 1662.

[604] _Parl. Hist._ 257.

[605] Baxter intimates (429) that some disagreement arose between the presbyterians and independents as to the toleration of popery, or rather, as he puts it, as to the active concurrence of the protestant dissenters in accepting such a toleration as should include popery.

The latter, conformably to their general principles, were favourable to it; but the former would not make themselves parties to any relaxation of the penal laws against the church of Rome, leaving the king to act as he thought fit. By this stiffness it is very probable that they provoked a good deal of persecution from the court, which they might have avoided by falling into its views of a general indulgence.

[606] _Parl. Hist._ 260. An adjournment had been moved, and lost by 161 to 119. Journals, 25 Feb.

[607] 19 Feb. Baxter, p. 429.

[608] Journals, 17 and 28 March 1663; _Parl. Hist._ 264. Burnet, 274, says the declaration of indulgence was usually ascribed to Bristol, but in fact proceeded from the king, and that the opposition to it in the house was chiefly made by the friends of Clarendon. The latter tells us in his _Life_, 189, that the king was displeased at the insolence of the Romish party, and gave the judges general orders to convict recusants. The minister and historian either was, or pretended to be, his master's dupe; and, if he had any suspicions of what was meant as to religion (as he must surely have had), is far too loyal to hint them. Yet the one circ.u.mstance he mentions soon after, that the Countess of Castlemaine suddenly declared herself a catholic, was enough to open his eyes and those of the world.

The Romish partisans a.s.sumed the tone of high loyalty, as exclusively characteristic of their religion; but affected, at this time, to use great civility towards the church of England. A book, ent.i.tled _Philanax Anglicus_, published under the name of Bellamy, the second edition of which is in 1663, after a most flattering dedication to Sheldon, launches into virulent abuse of the presbyterians and of the reformation in general, as founded on principles adverse to monarchy.

This indeed was common with the ultra or high-church party; but the work in question, though it purports to be written by a clergyman, is manifestly a shaft from the concealed bow of the Roman Apollo.

[609] See proofs of this in Ralph, 53; Rapin, p. 78. There was in 1663 a trifling insurrection in Yorks.h.i.+re, which the government wished to have been more serious, so as to afford a better pretext for strong measures; as may be collected from a pa.s.sage in a letter of Bennet to the Duke of Ormond, where he says, "The country was in a greater readiness to prevent the disorders than perhaps were to be wished; but it being the effect of their own care, rather than his majesty's commands, it is the less to be censured." Clarendon, 218, speaks of this as an important and extensive conspiracy; and the king dwelt on it in his next speech to the parliament. _Parl. Hist._ 289.

[610] 16 Car. 2, c. 4. A similar bill had pa.s.sed the Commons in July 1663, but hung some time in the upper house, and was much debated; the Commons sent up a message (an irregular practice of those times) to request their lords.h.i.+ps would expedite this and some other bills. The king seems to have been displeased at this delay; for he told them at their prorogation, that he had expected some bills against conventicles and distempers in religion, as well as the growth of popery, and should himself present some at their next meeting. _Parl.

Hist._ 288. Burnet observes, that to empower a justice of peace to convict without a jury, was thought a great breach on the principles of the English const.i.tution. 285.

[611] P. 221.

[612] 17 Car. 2, c. 2.

[613] Burnet; Baxter, Part III. p. 2; Neal, p. 652.

[614] Burnet: Baxter.

[615] Mr. Locke, in the "Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend in the Country," printed in 1675 (see it in his works, or in _Parliamentary History_, vol. iv. Appendix, No. 5), says it was lost by three votes, and mentions the persons. But the numbers in the Journals, October 27, 1665, appear to be 57 to 51. Probably he meant that those persons might have been expected to vote the other way.

[616] A pamphlet, with Baxter's name subscribed, called "Fair Warning, or XXV Reasons against Toleration and Indulgence of Popery," 1663, is a pleasant specimen of this _argumentum ab inferno_. "Being there is but one safe way to salvation, do you think that the protestant way is that way, or is it not? If it be not, why do you live in it? If it be, how can you find in your heart to give your subjects liberty to go another way? Can you, in your conscience, give them leave to go on in that course in which, in your conscience, you think you could not be saved?" Baxter, however, does not mention this little book in his life; nor does he there speak violently about the toleration of Romanists.

[617] The clergy had pet.i.tioned the House of Commons in 1664, _inter alia_, "That for the better observation of the Lord's day, and for the promoting of conformity, you would be pleased to advance the pecuniary mulct of twelve pence for each absence from divine service, in proportion to the degree, quality, and ability of the delinquent; that so the penalty may be of force sufficient to conquer the obstinacy of the nonconformists." Wilkin's _Concilia_, iv. 580. Letters from Sheldon to the commissary of the diocese of Canterbury, in 1669 and 1670, occur in the same collection (pp. 588, 589) directing him to inquire about conventicles; and if they cannot be restrained by ecclesiastical authority, to apply to the next justice of peace in order to put them down. A proclamation appears also from the king, enjoining magistrates to do this. In 1673, the archbishop writes a circular to his suffragans, directing them to proceed against such as keep schools without licence. P. 593.

See in the _Somers Tracts_, vii. 586, a "true and faithful narrative"

of the severities practised against nonconformists about this time.

Baxter's _Life_ is also full of proofs of persecution; but the most complete register is in Calamy's account of the ejected clergy.

[618] Pepys observes, 12 July 1667, "how everybody nowadays reflect upon Oliver and commend him, what brave things he did, and made all the neighbour princes fear him."

[619] The _Memoires de Grammont_ are known to everybody; and are almost unique in their kind, not only for the grace of their style and the vivacity of their pictures, but for the happy ignorance in which the author seems to have lived, that any one of his readers could imagine that there are such things as virtue and principle in the world. In the delirium of thoughtless voluptuousness they resemble some of the memoirs about the end of Louis XV.'s reign, and somewhat later; though I think, even in these, there is generally some effort, here and there, at moral censure, or some affectation of sensibility.

_They_, indeed, have always an awful moral; and in the light portraits of the court of Versailles (such, sometimes, as we might otherwise almost blush to peruse) we have before us the handwriting on the wall, the winter whirlwind hushed in its grim repose, and expecting its prey, the vengeance of an oppressed people and long-forbearing Deity.

No such retribution fell on the courtiers of Charles II.; but they earned in their own age, what has descended to posterity, though possibly very indifferent to themselves, the disgust and aversion of all that was respectable among mankind.

[620] This was carried on a division by 172 to 102. Journals, 25 November 1665. It was to be raised "in a regulated subsidiary way, reducing the same to a certainty in all counties, so as no person, for his real or personal estate, be exempted." They seem to have had some difficulty in raising this enormous subsidy. _Parliamentary History_, 305.

[621] 17 Car. II. c. 1. The same clause is repeated next year, and has become regular.

[622] _Life of Clarendon_, p. 315; Hatsell's _Precedents_, iii. 80.

[623] _Life of Clarendon_, p. 368. Burnet observes it was looked upon at the time as a great innovation. P. 335.

[624] Pepys's _Diary_ has lately furnished some things worthy to be extracted. "Mr. W. and I by water to Whitehall, and there at Sir George Carteret's lodgings Sir William Coventry met; and we did debate the whole business of our accounts to the parliament; where it appears to us that the charge of the war from Sept. 1, 1664, to this Michaelmas will have been but 3,200,000, and we have paid in that time somewhat about 2,200,000, so that we owe about 900,000; but our method of accounting, though it cannot, I believe, be far wide from the mark, yet will not abide a strict examination, if the parliament should be troublesome. Here happened a pretty question of Sir William Coventry, whether this account of ours will not put my lord treasurer to a difficulty to tell what is become of all the money the parliament have given in this time for the war, which hath amounted to about 4,000,000, which n.o.body there could answer; but I perceive they did doubt what his answer could be." Sept. 23, 1666.--The money granted the king for the war he afterwards (Oct. 10) reckons at 5,590,000, and the debt 900,000. The charge stated only at 3,200,000. "So what is become of all this sum, 2,390,000!" He mentions afterwards (Oct.

8) the proviso in the poll-tax bill, that there shall be a committee of nine persons to have the inspection on oath of all the accounts of the money given and spent for the war, "which makes the king and court mad; the king having given order to my lord chamberlain to send to the play-houses and brothels, to bid all the parliament men that were there to go to the parliament presently; but it was carried against the court by thirty or forty voices." It was thought, he says (Dec.

12) that above 400,000 had gone into the privy purse since the war.

[625] _Life of Clarendon_, p. 392.

[626] 19 and 20 Car. II. c. 1. Burnet, p. 374. They reported unaccounted balances of 1,509,161, besides much that was questionable in the payments. But, according to Ralph, p. 177, the commissioners had acted with more technical rigour than equity, surcharging the accountants for all sums not expended since the war began, though actually expended for the purposes of preparation.

[627] Burnet, p. 130. Southampton left all the business of the treasury, according to Burnet, p. 131, in the hands of Sir Philip Warwick, "a weak but incorrupt man." The king, he says, chose to put up with his contradiction rather than make him popular by dismissing him. But in fact, as we see by Clarendon's instance, the king retained his ministers long after he was displeased with them. Southampton's remissness and slowness, notwithstanding his integrity, Pepys says, was the cause of undoing the nation as much as anything; "yet, if I knew all the difficulties he has lain under, and his instrument Sir Philip Warwick, I might be of another mind." May 16, 1667.--He was willing to have done something, Clarendon tells us (p. 415) to gratify the presbyterians; on which account, the bishops thought him not enough affected to the church. His friend endeavours to extenuate this heinous sin of tolerant principles.