[544] 21 Nov. 1660, 151 to 149. _Parl. Hist._
[545] The troops disbanded were fourteen regiments of horse and eighteen of foot in England: one of horse and four of foot in Scotland, besides garrisons. Journals, Nov. 7.
[546] Ralph, 35; _Life of James_, 447; Grose's _Military Antiquities_, i. 61.
[547] Neal, 429, 444.
[548] _Id._ 471; Pepy's _Diary_, ad init. Even in Oxford, about 300 episcopalians used to meet every Sunday with the connivance of Dr.
Owen, dean of Christ Church. Orme's _Life of Owen_, 188. It is somewhat bold in Anglican writers to complain, as they now and then do, of the persecution they suffered at this period, when we consider what had been the conduct of the bishops before, and what it was afterwards. I do not know that any member of the church of England was imprisoned under the commonwealth, except for some political reason; certain it is that the gaols were not filled with them.
[549] The penal laws were comparatively dormant, though two priests suffered death, one of them before the protectorate. Butler's _Mem. of Catholics_, ii. 13. But in 1655 Cromwell issued a proclamation for the execution of these statutes; which seems to have been provoked by the persecution of the Vaudois. Whitelocke tells us he opposed it. 625. It was not acted upon.
[550] Several of these appear in _Somers Tracts_, vol. vii. The king's nearest friends were of course not backward in praising him, though a little at the expense of their consciences. "In a word," says Hyde to a correspondent in 1659, "if being the best protestant and the best Englishman of the nation can do the king good at home, he must prosper with and by his own subjects." _Clar. State Papers_, 541. Morley says he had been to see Judge Hale, who asked him questions about the king's character and firmness in the protestant religion. _Id._ 736.
Morley's exertions to dispossess men of the notion that the king and his brother were inclined to popery, are also mentioned by Kennet in his _Register_, 818: a book containing very copious information as to this particular period. Yet Morley could hardly have been without strong suspicions as to both of them.
[551] He had written in cipher to Secretary Nicholas, from St.
Johnston's, Sept. 3, 1650, the day of the battle of Dunbar, "Nothing could have confirmed me more to the church of England than being here, seeing their hypocrisy." Supplement to Evelyn's _Diary_, 133. The whole letter shows that he was on the point of giving his new friends the slip; as indeed he attempted soon after, in what was called the Start. Laing, iii. 463.
[552] 12 Car. II. c. 17. It is quite clear that an usurped possession was confirmed by this act, where the lawful incumbent was dead; though Burnet intimates the contrary.
[553] _Parl. Hist._ 94. The chancellor, in his speech to the houses at their adjournment in September, gave them to understand that this bill was not quite satisfactory to the court, who preferred the confirmation of ministers by particular letters patent under the great seal; that the king's prerogative of dispensing with acts of parliament might not grow into disuse. Many got the additional security of such patents; which proved of service to them, when the next parliament did not think fit to confirm this important statute.
Baxter says (p. 241), some got letters patent to turn out the possessors, where the former incumbents were dead. These must have been to benefices in the gift of the Crown; in other cases, letters patent could have been of no effect. I have found this confirmed by the Journals, Aug. 27, 1660.
[554] Upon Venner's insurrection, though the sectaries, and especially the independents, published a declaration of their abhorrence of it, a pretext was found for issuing a proclamation to shut up the conventicles of the anabaptists and quakers, and so worded as to reach all others. Kennet's _Register_, 357.
[555] Collier, 869, 871; Baxter, 232, 238. The bishops said, in their answer to the presbyterians' proposals, that the objections against a single person's administration in the church were equally applicable to the state. Collier, 872. But this was false, as they well knew, and designed only to produce an effect at court; for the objections were not grounded on reasoning, but on a presumed positive institution.
Besides which, the argument cut against themselves: for, if the English constitution, or something analogous to it, had been established in the church, their adversaries would have had all they _now_ asked.
[556] Stillingfleet's _Irenicum_; King's _Inquiry into the Constitution of the Primitive Church_. The former work was published at this time, with a view to moderate the pretensions of the Anglican party, to which the author belonged, by showing: 1. That there are no sufficient data for determining with certainty the form of church-government in the apostolical age, or that which immediately followed it. 2. That, as far as we may probably conjecture, the primitive church was framed on the model of the synagogue; that is, a synod of priests in every congregation having one of their own number for a chief or president. 3. That there is no reason to consider any part of the apostolical discipline as an invariable model for future ages, and that much of our own ecclesiastical polity cannot any way pretend to primitive authority. 4. That this has been the opinion of all the most eminent theologians at home and abroad. 5. That it would be expedient to introduce various modifications, not on the whole much different from the scheme of Usher. Stillingfleet, whose work is a remarkable instance of extensive learning and mature judgment at the age of about twenty-three, thought fit afterwards to retract it in a certain degree; and towards the latter part of his life, gave into more high-church politics. It is true that the _Irenicum_ must have been composed with almost unparalleled rapidity for such a work; but it shows, as far as I can judge, no marks of precipitancy. The biographical writers put its publication in 1659; but this must be a mistake; no one can avoid perceiving that it could not have passed the press on the 24th of March 1660, the latest day which could, according to the old style, have admitted the date of 1659, as it contains allusions to the king's restoration.
[557] Baxter's _Life_; Neal.
[558] They addressed the king to call such divines as he should think fit, to advise with concerning matters of religion. July 20, 1660.
Journals and _Parl. Hist._
[559] _Parl. Hist._; Neal, Baxter, Collier, etc. Burnet says that Clarendon had made the king publish this declaration; "but the bishops did not approve of this; and, after the service they did that lord in the Duke of York's marriage, he would not put any hardship on those who had so signally obliged him." This is very invidious. I know no evidence that the declaration was published at Clarendon's suggestion, except indeed that he was the great adviser of the Crown; yet in some things, especially of this nature, the king seems to have acted without his concurrence. He certainly speaks of the declaration as if he did not wholly relish it (_Life_, 75), and does not state it fairly. In _State Trials_, vi. 11, it is said to have been drawn up by Morley and Henchman for the church, Reynolds and Calamy for the dissenters; if they disagreed, Lords Anglesea and Hollis to decide.
[560] The chief objection made by the presbyterians, as far as we learn from Baxter, was, that the consent of presbyters to the bishops'
acts was not promised by the declaration, but only their advice; a distinction apparently not very material in practice, but bearing perhaps on the great point of controversy, whether the difference between the two were in order or in degree. The king would not come into the scheme of consent; though they pressed him with a passage out of the _Icon Basilike_, where his father allowed of it. _Life of Baxter_, 276. Some alterations, however, were made in consequence of their suggestions.
[561] _Parl. Hist._ 141, 152. Clarendon, 76, most strangely observes on this: "Some of the leaders brought a bill into the house for the making that declaration a law, which was suitable to their other acts of ingenuity to keep the church for ever under the same indulgence and without any settlement; which being quickly perceived, there was no further progress in it." The bill was brought in by Sir Matthew Hale.
[562] Collier, who of course thinks this declaration an encroachment on the church, as well as on the legislative power, says, "For this reason it was overlooked at the assizes and sessions in several places in the country, where the dissenting ministers were indicted for not conforming pursuant to the laws in force." P. 876. Neal confirms this, 586, and Kennet's _Register_, 374.
[563] _Life of Clarendon_, 74. A plausible and somewhat dangerous attack had been made on the authority of this parliament from an opposite quarter, in a pamphlet written by one Drake, under the name of Thomas Philips, entitled "The Long Parliament Revived," and intended to prove that by the act of the late king, providing that they should not be dissolved but by the concurrence of the whole legislature, they were still in existence; and that the king's demise, which legally puts an end to a parliament, could not affect one that was declared permanent by so direct an enactment. This argument seems by no means inconsiderable; but the times were not such as to admit of technical reasoning. The convention parliament, after questioning Drake, finally sent up articles of impeachment against him; but the Lords, after hearing him in his defence, when he confessed his fault, left him to be prosecuted by the attorney-general. Nothing more, probably, took place. _Parl. Hist._ 145, 157. This was in November and December 1660: but Drake's book seems still to have been in considerable circulation; at least I have two editions of it, both bearing the date of 1661. The argument it contains is purely legal; but the aim must have been to serve the presbyterian or parliamentarian cause.
[564] Complaints of insults on the presbyterian clergy were made to the late parliament. _Parl. Hist._ 160. The Anglicans inveighed grossly against them on the score of their past conduct, notwithstanding the act of indemnity. Kennet's _Register_, 616. See, as a specimen, South's sermons, _passim_.
[565] Journals, 17th of May 1661. The previous question was moved on this vote, but lost by 228 to 103; Morice, the secretary of state, being one of the tellers for the minority. Monk, I believe, to whom Morice owed his elevation, did what he could to prevent violent measures against the presbyterians. Alderman Love was suspended from sitting in the house July 3, for not having taken the sacrament. I suppose that he afterwards conformed; for he became an active member of the opposition.
[566] Journals, June 14, etc.; _Parl. Hist._ 209; _Life of Clarendon_, 71; Burnet, 230. A bill discharging the loyalists from all interest exceeding three per cent. on debts contracted before the wars passed the Commons; but was dropped in the other house. The great discontent of this party at the indemnity continued to show itself in subsequent sessions. Clarendon mentions, with much censure, that many private bills passed about 1662, annulling conveyances of lands made during the troubles. Pp. 162, 163. One remarkable instance ought to be noticed, as having been greatly misrepresented. At the Earl of Derby's seat of Knowsley in Lancashire a tablet is placed to commemorate the ingratitude of Charles II. in having refused the royal assent to a bill which had passed both houses for restoring the son of the Earl of Derby, who had lost his life in the royal cause, to his family estate.
This has been so often reprinted by tourists and novelists, that it passes currently for a just reproach on the king's memory. It was, however, in fact one of his most honourable actions. The truth is, that the cavalier faction carried through parliament a bill to make void the conveyances of some manors which Lord Derby had voluntarily sold before the restoration, in the very face of the act of indemnity, and against all law and justice. Clarendon, who, together with some very respectable peers, had protested against this measure in the upper house, thought it his duty to recommend the king to refuse his assent. Lords' Journals, Feb. 6 and May 14, 1662. There is so much to blame in both the minister and his master, that it is but fair to give them credit for that which the pardonable prejudices of the family interested have led it to mis-state.
[567] Commons' Journals, 1st July 1661. A division took place, November 26, on a motion to lay this bill aside, in consideration of the king's proclamation, which was lost by 124 to 109: Lord Cornbury (Clarendon's son) being a teller for the Noes. The bill was sent up to the Lords Jan. 27, 1662. See also _Parl. Hist._ 217, 225. Some of their proceedings trespassed upon the executive power, and infringed the prerogative they laboured to exalt. But long interruption of the due course of the constitution had made its boundaries indistinct.
Thus, in the convention parliament, the bodies of Cromwell, Bradshaw, Ireton, and others, were ordered, Dec 4, on the motion of Colonel Titus, to be disinterred, and hanged on a gibbet. The Lords concurred in this order; but the mode of address to the king would have been more regular. _Parl. Hist._ 151.
[568] 3 Inst. 7. This appears to have been held in Bagot's case, 9 Edw. 4. See also Higden's _View of the English Constitution_, 1709.
[569] Foster, in his _Discourse on High Treason_, evidently intimates that he thought the conviction of Vane unjustifiable.
[570] "The relation that has been made to me of Sir H. Vane's carriage yesterday in the Hall is the occasion of this letter, which, if I am rightly informed, was so insolent, as to justify all he had done; acknowledging no supreme power in England but a parliament, and many things to that purpose. You have had a true account of all; and if he has given new occasion to be hanged, certainly he is too dangerous a man to let live, if we can honestly put him out of the way. Think of this, and give me some account of it to-morrow, till when I have no more to say to you. C." Indorsed in Lord Clarendon's hand, "The king, June 7, 1662." Vane was beheaded June 14. Burnet (note in Oxford edition), p. 164; Harris's _Lives_, v. 32.
[571] Vane gave up the profits of his place as treasurer of the navy, which, according to his patent, would have amounted to 30,000 per ann. if we may rely on Harris's _Life of Cromwell_, p. 260.
[572] 13 Car. 2, c. 1 and 6. A bill for settling the militia had been much opposed in the convention parliament, as tending to bring in martial law. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 145. It seems to have dropped.
[573] C. 1.
[574] C. 2. The only opposition made to this was in the House of Lords by the Earl of Bristol and some of the Roman catholic party, who thought the bishops would not be brought into a toleration of their religion. _Life of Clarendon_, p. 138.
[575] C. 5.
[576] 13 Car. 2, sess. 2, c. i. This bill did not pass without a strong opposition in the Commons. It was carried at last by 182 to 77 (Journals, July 5); but, on a previous division for its commitment the numbers were 135 to 136. June 20. Prynne was afterwards reprimanded by the speaker for publishing a pamphlet against this act (July 15); but his courage had now forsaken him; and he made a submissive apology, though the censure was pronounced in a very harsh manner.
[577] Journals, 3rd April 1662; 10th March 1663.
[578] _Parl. Hist._ 289. Clarendon speaks very unjustly of the triennial act, forgetting that he had himself concurred in it. P. 221.
[579] 16 Car. 2, c. 1. We find by the Journals that some divisions took place during the passage of this bill, and though, as far as appears, on subordinate points, yet probably springing from an opposition to its principle. March 28, 1664. There was by this time a regular party formed against the court.
[580] P. 383.
[581] Lords' Journals, 23rd and 24th Jan. 1662.
[582] 12th Feb.
[583] 19th March 1663.
[584] 13 Car. 2, c. 12.
[585] Clarendon, in his _Life_, p. 149, says, that the king "had received the presbyterian ministers with grace; and did believe that he should work upon them by persuasions, having been well acquainted with their common arguments by the conversation he had had in Scotland, and _was very able to confute them_." This is one of the strange absurdities into which Clarendon's prejudices hurry him in almost every page of his writings, and more especially in this continuation of his _Life_. Charles, as his minister well knew, could not read a common Latin book (_Clarendon State Papers_, iii. 567), and had no manner of acquaintance with theological learning, unless the popular argument in favour of popery is so to be called; yet he was very able to confute men who had passed their lives in study, on a subject involving a considerable knowledge of Scripture and the early writers in their original languages.
[586] Clarendon admits that this could not have been done till the former parliament was dissolved. 97. This means, of course, on the supposition that the king's word was to be broken. "The malignity towards the church," he says, "seemed increasing, and to be greater than at the coming in of the king." Pepys, in his _Diary_, has several sharp remarks on the misconduct and unpopularity of the bishops, though himself an episcopalian even before the restoration. "The clergy are so high that all people I meet with do protest against their practice." August 31, 1660. "I am convinced in my judgment, that the present clergy will never heartily go down with the generality of the commons of England; they have been so used to liberty and freedom, and they are so acquainted with the pride and debauchery of the present clergy. He [Mr. Blackburn, a nonconformist] did give me many stories of the affronts which the clergy receive in all parts of England from the gentry and ordinary persons of the parish." November 9, 1663. The opposite party had recourse to the old weapons of pious fraud. I have a tract containing twenty-seven instances of remarkable judgments, all between June 1660, and April 1661, which befell divers persons for reading the common prayer or reviling godly ministers.
This is entitled _Annus Mirabilis_; and, besides the above twenty-seven, attests so many prodigies, that the name is by no means misapplied. The bishops made large fortunes by filling up leases.
Burnet, 260. And Clarendon admits them to have been too rapacious, though he tries to extenuate. P. 48.
[587] The fullest account of this conference, and of all that passed as to the comprehension of the presbyterians, is to be read in Baxter, whom Neal has abridged. Some allowance must, of course, be made for the resentment of Baxter; but his known integrity makes it impossible to discredit the main part of his narration. Nor is it necessary to rest on the evidence of those who may be supposed to have the prejudices of dissenters. For Bishop Burnet admits that all the concern which seemed to employ the prelates' minds, was not only to make an alteration on the presbyterians' account, but to straiten the terms of conformity far more than before the war. Those, however, who would see what can be said by writers of high-church principles, may consult Kennet's _History of Charles II._ p. 252, or Collier, p. 878.
One little anecdote may serve to display the spirit with which the Anglicans came to the conference. Upon Baxter's saying that their proceedings would alienate a great part of the _nation_, Stearne, Bishop of Carlisle, observed to his associates: "He will not say _kingdom_, lest he should acknowledge a king." Baxter, p. 338. This was a very malignant reflection on a man who was well known never to have been of the republican party. It is true that Baxter seems to have thought, in 1659, that Richard Cromwell would have served the turn better than Charles Stuart; and, as a presbyterian, he thought very rightly. See p. 207, and part iii. p. 71. But, preaching before the parliament, April 30, 1660, he said it was none of our differences whether we should be loyal to our king; on that all were agreed. P.