[751] _Parl. Hist._ 1040.
[752] See Marvell's "Seasonable Argument to persuade all the grand Juries in England to petition for a new Parliament." He gives very bad characters of the principal members on the court side; but we cannot take for granted all that comes from so unscrupulous a libeller. Sir Harbottle Grimstone had first thrown out, in the session of 1675, that a standing parliament was as great a grievance as a standing army, and that an application ought to be made to the king for a dissolution.
This was not seconded; and met with much disapprobation from both sides of the house. _Parl. Hist._ vii. 64. But the country party, in two years' time, had changed their views, and were become eager for a dissolution. An address to that effect was moved in the House of Lords, and lost by only two voices, the Duke of York voting for it.
_Id._ 800. This is explained by a passage in Coleman's _Letters_; where that intriguer expresses his desire to see parliament dissolved, in the hope that another would be more favourable to the toleration of catholics. This must mean that the dissenters might gain an advantage over the rigorous church of England men, and be induced to come into a general indulgence.
[753] This test, 30 Car. 2, stat. 2, is the declaration subscribed by members of both houses of parliament on taking their seats, that there is no transubstantiation of the elements in the Lord's supper; and that the invocation of saints, as practised in the church of Rome, is idolatrous. The oath of supremacy was already taken by the Commons, though not by the Lords; and it is a great mistake to imagine that catholics were legally capable of sitting in the lower house before the act of 1679. But it had been the aim of the long parliament in 1642 to exclude them from the House of Lords; and this was of course revived with greater eagerness, as the danger from their influence grew more apparent. A bill for this purpose passed the Commons in 1675, but was thrown out by the peers. Journals, May 14, Nov. 8. It was brought in again in the spring of 1678. _Parl. Hist._ 990. In the autumn of the same year it was renewed, when the Lords agreed to the oath of supremacy, but omitted the declaration against transubstantiation, so far as their own house was affected by it. Lords' Journals, Nov. 20, 1678. They also excepted the Duke of York from the operation of the bill; which exception was carried in the Commons by two voices. _Parl.
Hist._ 1040. The Duke of York and seven more lords protested.
The violence of those times on all sides will account for this theological declaration; but it is more difficult to justify its retention at present. Whatever influence a belief in the pope's supremacy may exercise upon men's politics, it is hard to see how the doctrine of transubstantiation can directly affect them; and surely he who renounces the former, cannot be very dangerous on account of his adherence to the latter. Nor is it less extraordinary to demand, from many of those who usually compose a House of Commons, the assertion that the practice of the church of Rome in the invocation of saints is idolatrous; since, even on the hypothesis that a country gentleman has a clear notion of what is meant by idolatry, he is, in many cases, wholly out of the way of knowing what the church of Rome or any of its members believe or practise. The invocation of saints, as held and explained by that church in the council of Trent, is surely not idolatrous, with whatever error it may be charged; but the practice at least of uneducated Roman catholics seems fully to justify the declaration; understanding it to refer to certain superstitions, countenanced or not eradicated by their clergy. I have sometimes thought that the legislator of a great nation sets off oddly by solemnly professing theological positions about which he knows nothing, and swearing to the possession of property which he does not enjoy. [1827.]
[754] The second reading of the exclusion bill was carried, May 21, 1679, by 207 to 128. The debates are in _Parliamentary History_, 1125 _et post_. In the next parliament it was carried without a division.
Sir Leoline Jenkins alone seems to have taken the high ground, that "parliament cannot disinherit the heir of the Crown; and that, if such an act should pass, it would be invalid in itself."--_Id._ 1191.
[755] While the exclusion bill was passing the Commons, the king took the pains to speak himself to almost every lord, to dissuade him from assenting to it when it should come up; telling them, at the same time, let what would happen, he would never suffer such a villainous bill to pass. _Life of James_, 553.
[756] Ralph, p. 498. The atrocious libel, entitled, "An Appeal from the Country to the City," published in 1679, and usually ascribed to Ferguson (though said in _Biogr. Brit._ art. L'Estrange, to be written by Charles Blount), was almost sufficient of itself to excuse the return of public opinion towards the throne. _State Tracts_, temp.
Car. II.; Ralph, i. 476; _Parl. Hist._ iv. Appendix. The king is personally struck at in this tract with the utmost fury: the queen is called Agrippina, in allusion to the infamous charges of Oates; Monmouth is held up as the hope of the country. "He will stand by you, therefore you ought to stand by him. He who hath the worst title, always makes the best king." One Harris was tried for publishing this pamphlet. The jury at first found him guilty of selling; an equivocal verdict, by which they probably meant to deny, or at least to disclaim, any assertion of the libellous character of the publication.
But Scroggs telling them it was their province to say guilty or not guilty, they returned a verdict of guilty. _State Trials_, vii. 925.
Another arrow dipped in the same poison was a "Letter to a Person of Honour concerning the Black Box." _Somers Tracts_, viii. 189. The story of a contract of marriage between the king and Mrs. Waters, Monmouth's mother, concealed in a black box, had lately been current; and the former had taken pains to expose its falsehood by a public examination of the gentleman whose name had been made use of. This artful tract is intended to keep up the belief of Monmouth's legitimacy, and even to graft it on the undeniable falsehood of that tale; as if it had been purposely fabricated to delude the people by setting them on a wrong scent. See also another libel of the same class, p. 197.
Though Monmouth's illegitimacy is past all question, it has been observed by Harris that the Princess of Orange, in writing to her brother about Mrs. Waters, in 1655, twice names her as his wife.
Thurloe, i. 665, quoted in Harris's _Lives_, iv. 168. But though this was a scandalous indecency on her part, it proves no more than that Charles, like other young men in the heat of passion, was foolish enough to give that appellation to his mistress; and that his sister humoured him in it.
Sidney mentions a strange piece of Monmouth's presumption. When he went to dine with the city in October 1680, it was remarked that the bar, by which the heralds denote illegitimacy, had been taken off the royal arms on his coach. _Letters to Saville_, p. 54.
[757] _Life of James_, 592 _et post_. Compare Dalrymple, p. 265 _et post_. Barillon was evidently of opinion that the king would finally abandon his brother. Sunderland joined the Duchess of Portsmouth, and was one of the thirty peers who voted for the bill in November 1680.
James charges Godolphin also with deserting him. P. 615. But his name does not appear in the protest signed by twenty-five peers; though that of the privy seal, Lord Anglesea, does. The Duchess of Portsmouth sat near the Commons at Stafford's trial, "dispensing her sweetmeats and gracious looks among them."--P. 638.
[758] _Life of James_, p. 657.
[759] Il est persuade que l'autorite royale ne se peut retablir en Angleterre que par une guerre civile. Aug. 19, 1680. Dalrymple, 265.
[760] Dalrymple, 277. Nov. 1680.
[761] Marvell's "Growth of Popery," in _State Tracts_, temp. Car. II.
p. 98; _Parl. Hist._ 853. The second reading was carried by 127 to 88.
Serjeant Maynard, who was probably not in the secrets of his party, seems to have been surprised at their opposition. An objection with Marvell, and not by any means a bad one, would have been, that the children of the royal family were to be consigned for education to the sole government of bishops. The Duke of York, and thirteen other peers, protested against this bill, not all of them from the same motives, as may be collected from their names. Lords' Journals, 13th and 15th March 1679.
[762] Lords Russell and Cavendish, Sir W. Coventry and Sir Thomas Littleton, seem to have been in favour of limitations. Lord J.
Russell, p. 42; Ralph, 446; Sidney's _Letters_, p. 32. Temple and Shaftesbury, for opposite reasons, stood alone in the council against the scheme of limitations. Temple's _Memoirs_.
[763] Commons' Journals, 23rd Nov. 1680, 8th Jan. 1681.
[764] _Life of James_, 634, 671; Dalrymple, p. 307.
[765] Dalrymple, p. 301; _Life of James_, 660, 671. The duke gave himself up for lost when he heard of the clause in the king's speech declaring his readiness to hearken to any expedient but the exclusion.
Birch and Hampden, he says, were in favour of this; but Fitzharris's business set the house in a flame, and determined them to persist in their former scheme. Reresby says (p. 19, confirmed by _Parl. Hist._ 132) it was supported by Sir Thomas Littleton, who is said to have been originally against the bill of exclusion, as well as Sir William Coventry. Sidney's _Letters_, p. 32. It was opposed by Jones, Winnington, Booth, and, if the _Parliamentary History_ be right, by Hampden and Birch.
[766] Temple's _Memoirs_. He says their revenues in land or offices amounted to 300,000 per annum; whereas those of the House of Commons seldom exceeded 400,000. The king objected much to admitting Halifax; but himself proposed Shaftesbury, much against Temple's wishes. The funds in Holland rose on the news. Barillon was displeased, and said it was making "des etats, et non des conseils;" which was not without weight, for the king had declared he would take no measure, nor even choose any new counsellor, without their consent. But the extreme disadvantage of the position in which this placed the Crown, rendered it absolutely certain that it was not submitted to with sincerity.
Lady Portsmouth told Barillon the new ministry was formed in order to get money from parliament. Another motive, no doubt, was to prevent the exclusion bill.
[767] _Life of James_, 558. On the king's sudden illness, Aug. 22, 1679, the ruling ministers, Halifax, Sunderland, and Essex, alarmed at the anarchy which might come on his death, of which Shaftesbury and Monmouth would profit, sent over for the duke; but soon endeavoured to make him go into Scotland, and, after a struggle against the king's tricks to outwit them, succeeded in this object. _Id._ p. 570 _et post_.
[768] Temple; Reresby, p. 89. "So true it is," he says, "that there is no wearing the court and country livery together." Thus also Algernon Sidney, in his letters to Saville, p. 16. "The king certainly inclines not to be so stiff as formerly in advancing only those that exalt prerogative; but the Earl of Essex, and some others that are coming into play thereupon, cannot avoid being suspected of having intentions different from what they have hitherto professed." He ascribed the change of ministry at this time to Sunderland: "if he and two more [Essex and Halifax] can well agree among themselves, I believe they will have the management of almost all businesses, and may bring much honour to themselves and good to our nation." April 21, 1679. But he writes afterwards (Sept. 8) that Halifax and Essex were become very unpopular. P. 50. "The bare being preferred," says Secretary Coventry, "maketh some of them suspected, though not criminal." Lord J.
Russell's _Life of Lord Russell_, p. 90.
[769] See the protests in 1679, _passim_.
[770] Temple's _Memoirs_; _Life of James_, 581.
[771] Dalrymple, pp. 230, 237.
[772] See Roger North's account of this court stratagem. _Examen of Kennet_, 546. The proclamation itself, however, in the _Gazette_, 12th Dec. 1679, is more strongly worded than we should expect from North's account of it, and is by no means limited to _tumultuous_ petitions.
[773] _London Gazettes_ of 1680, _passim_.
[774] David Lewis was executed at Usk for saying mass, Aug. 27, 1679.
_State Trials_, vii. 256. Other instances occur in the same volume; see especially pp. 811, 839, 849, 587. Pemberton was more severe and unjust towards these unfortunate men than Scroggs. The king, as his brother tells us, came unwillingly into these severities to prevent worse. _Life of James_, 583.
[775] Journals, _passim_; North's _Examen_, 377, 561.
[776] They went a little too far, however, when they actually seated Sir William Waller in Withens's place for Westminster. Ralph, 514.
[777] Journals, Dec. 24, 1680.
[778] _Parl. Hist._ i. 174.
[779] Reresby's _Memoirs_, 106. Lord Halifax and he agreed, he says, on consideration, that the court party were not only the most numerous, but the most active and wealthy part of the nation.
[780] It was carried by 219 to 95 (17th Nov.), to address the king to remove Lord Halifax from his councils and presence for ever. They resolved, _nem. con._, that no member of that house should accept of any office or place of profit from the Crown, or any promise of one, during such time as he should continue a member; and that all offenders herein should be expelled. 30th Dec. They passed resolutions against a number of persons by name, whom they suspected to have advised the king not to pass the bill of exclusion. 7th Jan. 1680.
They resolved unanimously (10th Jan.), that it is the opinion of this house, that the city of London was burnt in the year 1666 by the papists, designing thereby to introduce popery and arbitrary power into this kingdom. They were going on with more resolutions in the same spirit, when the usher of the black rod appeared to prorogue them. _Parl. Hist._
[781] Commons' Journals, March 26, 1681.
[782] _Parl. Hist._ ii. 54. Lord Hale doubted whether this were a statute. But the judges, in 1689, on being consulted by the Lords, inclined to think that it was one; arguing, I suppose, from the words "in full parliament," which have been held to imply the presence and assent of the Commons.
[783] Hatsell's _Precedents_, iv. 54, and Appendix, 347; _State Trials_, viii. 236, and xii. 1218.
[784] _Commentaries_, vol. iv. c. 19.
[785] Ralph, 564 _et post_; _State Trials_, 223, 427; North's _Examen_, 274. Fitzharris was an Irish papist, who had evidently had interviews with the king through Lady Portsmouth. One Hawkins, afterwards made Dean of Chichester for his pains, published a narrative of this case full of falsehoods.
[786] _State Trials_, viii. 759. Roger North's remark on this is worthy of him; "having sworn false, as it is manifest some did before to one purpose, it is more likely they swore true to the contrary."
_Examen_, p. 117. And Sir Robert Sawyer's observation to the same effect is also worthy of him. On College's trial, Oates, in his examination for the prisoner, said, that Turberville had changed sides; Sawyer, as counsel for the Crown, answered, "Dr. Oates, Mr.
Turberville has not changed sides, you have; he is still a witness for the king, you are against him." _State Trials_, viii. 639.
The opposite party were a little perplexed by the necessity of refuting testimony they had relied upon. In a dialogue, entitled "Ignoramus Vindicated," it is asked, why were Dr. Oates and others believed against the papists? and the best answer the case admits is given: "Because his and their testimony was backed by that undeniable evidence of Coleman's papers, Godfrey's murder, and a thousand other pregnant circumstances, which makes the case much different from that when people, of very suspected credit, swear the grossest improbabilities." But the same witnesses, it is urged, had lately been believed against the papists. "What! then," replies the advocate of Shaftesbury, "may not a man be very honest and credible at one time, and six months after, by necessity, subornation, malice, or twenty ways, become a notorious villain?"