concerned, no hereditary despot, proud in the crimes of a
hundred ancestors, could more have spurned at every limitation
than this soldier of a commonwealth."
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 10, part 2.
"Cromwell was, and felt himself to be, a dictator called in by
the winning cause in a revolution to restore confidence and
secure peace. He was, as he said frequently, 'the Constable
set to keep order in the Parish.' Nor was he in any sense a
military despot. ... Never did a ruler invested with absolute
power and overwhelming military force more obstinately strive
to surround his authority with legal limits and Parliamentary
control."
F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 11.
"To this condition, then, England was now reduced. After the
gallantest fight for liberty that had ever been fought by any
nation in the world, she found herself trampled under foot by
a military despot. All the vices of old kingly rule were
nothing to what was now imposed upon her."
J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth:
Cromwell.
{892}
"His [Cromwell's] wish seems to have been to govern
constitutionally, and to substitute the empire of the laws for
that of the sword. But he soon found that, hated as he was,
both by Royalists and Presbyterians, he could be safe only by
being absolute. ... Those soldiers who would not suffer him to
assume the kingly title, stood by him when he ventured on acts
of power as high as any English king has ever attempted. The
government, therefore, though in form a republic, was in truth
a despotism, moderated only by the wisdom, the sobriety and
the magnanimity of the despot."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 1.
England: A. D. 1655-1658.
War with Spain, alliance with France.
Acquisition of Dunkirk.
"Though the German war ['the Thirty Years' War,' concluded in
1648 by the Treaty of Westphalia] was over, the struggle
between France and Spain was continued with great animosity,
each country striving to crush her rival and become the first
power in Europe. Both Louis XIV. and Philip IV. of Spain were
bidding for the protector's support. Spain offered the
possession of Calais, when taken from France; France the
possession of Dunkirk when taken from Spain (1655). Cromwell
determined to ally himself with France against Spain. ... It
was in the West Indies that the obstructive policy of Spain
came most into collision with the interests of England. Her
kings based their claims to the possession of two continents
on the bull of Pope Alexander VI., who in 1493 had granted
them all lands they should discover from pole to pole, at the
distance of 100 leagues west from the Azores and Cape Verd
Islands. On the strength of this bull they held that the
discovery of an island gave them the right to the group, the
discovery of a headland the right to a continent. Though this
monstrous claim had quite broken down as far as the North
American continent was concerned, the Spaniards, still
recognizing 'no peace beyond the line,' endeavoured to shut
all Europeans but themselves out of any share in the trade or
colonization of at least the southern half of the New World.
... While war was now proclaimed with Spain, a treaty of peace
was signed between France and England, Louis XIV. agreeing to
banish Charles Stuart and his brothers from French territory
(October 24, 1655). This treaty was afterwards changed into a
league, offensive and defensive (March 23, 1657), Cromwell
undertaking to assist Louis with 6,000 men in besieging
Gravelines, Mardyke, and Dunkirk, on condition of receiving
the two latter towns when reduced by the allied armies. By the
occupation of these towns Cromwell intended to control the
trade of the Channel, to hold the Dutch in check, who were
then but unwilling friends, and to lessen the danger of
invasion from any union of Royalists and Spaniards. The war
opened in the year 1657 [Jamaica, however, had already been
taken from the Spaniards and St. Domingo attacked], with
another triumph by sea." This was Blake's last exploit. He
attacked and destroyed the Spanish bullion fleet, from Mexico,
in the harbor of Santa Cruz, island of Teneriffe, and silenced
the forts which guarded it. The great sea-captain died on his
voyage home, after striking this blow. The next spring "the
siege of Dunkirk was commenced (May, 1658). The Spaniards
tried to relieve the town, but were completely defeated in an
engagement called the Battle of the Dunes from the sand hills
among which it was fought; the defeat was mainly owing to the
courage and discipline of Oliver's troops, who won for
themselves the name of 'the Immortal Six Thousand.' ... Ten
days after the battle Dunkirk surrendered, and the French had
no choice but to give over to the English ambassador the keys
of a town they thought 'unsi bon morceau' ['a good ...'] (June
25)."
B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
book 9, speech 5 and book 10, letters 152-157.
J. Campbell,
Naval History of Great Britain,
chapter 15 (volume 2).
J. Waylen,
The House of Cromwell and the Story of Dunkirk,
pages 173-272.
W. H. Dixon,
Robert Blake,
chapters 9-10.
D. Hannay,
Admiral Blake,
chapter 9-11.
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.
The fall of the Protectorate and Restoration of the Stuarts.
King Charles II.
When Oliver Cromwell died, on the 3d day of September,
1658--the anniversary of his victories at Dunbar and at
Worcester--his eldest son Richard, whom he had nominated, it
was said, on his death-bed, was proclaimed Protector, and
succeeded him "as quietly as any King had ever been succeeded
by any Prince of Wales. During five months, the administration
of Richard Cromwell went on so tranquilly and regularly that
all Europe believed him to be firmly established on the chair
of state." But Richard had none of his father's genius or
personal power, and the discontents and jealousies which the
former had rigorously suppressed soon tossed the latter from
his unstable throne by their fierce upheaval. He summoned a
new Parliament (January 27, 1659), which recognized and
confirmed his authority, though containing a powerful
opposition, of uncompromising republicans and secret
royalists. But the army, which the great Protector had tamed
to submissive obedience, was now stirred into mischievous
action once more as a political power in the state,
subservient to the ambition of Fleetwood and other commanders.
Richard Cromwell could not make himself the master of his
father's battalions. "He was used by the army as an instrument
for the purpose of dissolving the Parliament [April 22], and
was then contemptuously thrown aside. The officers gratified
their republican allies by declaring that the expulsion of the
Rump had been illegal, and by inviting that assembly to resume
its functions. The old Speaker and a quorum of the old members
came together [May 9] and were proclaimed, amidst the scarcely
stifled derision and execration of the whole nation, the
supreme power in the Commonwealth. It was at the same time
expressly declared that there should be no first magistrate
and no House of Lords. But this state of things could not
last. On the day on which the Long Parliament revived, revived
also its old quarrel with the army. Again the Rump forgot that
it owed its existence to the pleasure of the soldiers, and
began to treat them as subjects. Again the doors of the House
of Commons were closed by military violence [October 13]; and
a provisional government, named by the officers, assumed the
direction of affairs." The troops stationed in Scotland, under
Monk, had not been consulted, however, in these transactions,
and were evidently out of sympathy with their comrades in
England. Monk, who had never meddled with politics before, was
now induced to interfere.
{893}
He refused to acknowledge the military provisional government,
declared himself the champion of the civil power, and marched
into England at the head of his 7,000 veterans. His movement
was everywhere welcomed and encouraged by popular
demonstrations of delight. The army in England lost courage
and lost unity, awed and paralyzed by the public feeling at
last set free. Monk reached London without opposition, and was
the recognized master of the realm. Nobody knew his
intentions--himself, perhaps, as little as any--and it was
not until after a period of protracted suspense that he
declared himself for the convening of a new and free
Parliament, in the place of the Rump--which had again resumed
its sittings--for the settlement of the state. "The result of
the elections was such as might have been expected from the
temper of the nation. The new House of Commons consisted, with
few exceptions, of persons friendly to the royal family. The
Presbyterians formed the majority. ... The new Parliament,
which, having been called without the royal writ, is more
accurately described as a Convention, met at Westminster
[April 26, 1660]. The Lords repaired to the hall, from which
they had, during more than eleven years, been excluded by
force. Both Houses instantly invited the King to return to his
country. He was proclaimed with pomp never before known. A
gallant fleet convoyed him from Holland to the coast of Kent.
When he landed [May 25, 1660], the cliffs of Dover were
covered by thousands of gazers, among whom scarcely one could
be found who was not weeping with delight. The journey to
London was a continued triumph."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 1.
The only guarantee with which the careless nation took back
their ejected kings of the faithless race of Stuarts was
embodied in a Declaration which Charles sent over from "Our
Court at Breda" in April, and which was read in Parliament
with an effusive display of respect and thankfulness. In this
Declaration from Breda, "a general amnesty and liberty of
conscience were promised, with such exceptions and limitations
only as the Parliament should think fit to make. All delicate
questions, among others the proprietorship of confiscated
estates, were in like manner referred to the decision of
Parliament, thus leaving the King his liberty while
diminishing his responsibility; and though fully asserting the
ancient rights of the Crown, he announced his intention to
associate the two Houses with himself in all great affairs of
State."
F. P. Guizot,
History of Richard Cromwell and the Restoration,
book 4 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 2, 1660-61.
Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 16 (volume 6).
D. Masson,
Life of Milton,
volume 5, book 3.
J. Corbett,
Monk,
chapter 9-14.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1685.
The Merry Monarch.
"There never were such profligate times in England as under
Charles the Second. Whenever you see his portrait, with his
swarthy ill-looking face and great nose, you may fancy him in
his Court at Whitehall, surrounded by some of the very worst
vagabonds in the kingdom (though they were lords and ladies),
drinking, gambling, indulging in vicious conversation, and
committing every kind of profligate excess. It has been a
fashion to call Charles the Second 'The Merry Monarch.' Let me
try to give you a general idea of some of the merry things
that were done, in the merry days when this merry gentleman
sat upon his merry throne, in merry England. The first merry
proceeding was--of course--to declare that he was one of the
greatest, the wisest, and the noblest kings that ever shone,
like the blessed sun itself, on this benighted earth. The next
merry and pleasant piece of business was, for the Parliament,
in the humblest manner, to give him one million two hundred
thousand pounds a year, and to settle upon him for life that
old disputed 'tonnage and poundage' which had been so bravely
fought for. Then, General Monk, being made Earl of Albemarle,
and a few other Royalists similarly rewarded, the law went to
work to see what was to be done to those persons (they were
called Regicides) who had been concerned in making a martyr of
the late King. Ten of these were merrily executed; that is to
say, six of the judges, one of the council, Colonel Hacker and
another officer who had commanded the Guards, and Hugh Peters,
a preacher who had preached against the martyr with all his
heart. These executions were so extremely merry, that every
horrible circumstance which Cromwell had abandoned was revived
with appalling cruelty. ... Sir Harry Vane, who had furnished
the evidence against Stratford, and was one of the most
staunch of the Republicans, was also tried, found guilty, and
ordered for execution. ... These merry scenes were succeeded
by another, perhaps even merrier. On the anniversary of the
late King's death, the bodies of Oliver Cromwell, Ireton, and
Bradshaw, "Were torn out of their graves in 'Westminster
Abbey, dragged to Tyburn, hanged there on a gallows all day
long, and then beheaded. Imagine the head of Oliver Cromwell
set upon a pole to be stared at by a brutal crowd, not one of
whom would have dared to look the living Oliver in the face
for half a moment! Think, after you have read this reign, what
England was under Oliver Cromwell who was torn out of his
grave, and what it was under this merry monarch who sold it,
like a merry Judas, over and over again. Of course, the
remains of Oliver's wife and daughter were not to be spared,
either, though they had been most excellent women. The base
clergy of that time gave up their bodies, which had been
buried in the Abbey, and--to the eternal disgrace of
England--they were thrown into a pit, together with the
mouldering bones of Pym, and of the brave and bold old Admiral
Blake. ... The whole Court was a great flaunting crowd of
debauched men and shameless women; and Catherine's merry
husband insulted and outraged her in every possible way, until
she consented to receive those worthless creatures as her very
good friends, and to degrade herself by their companionship. A
Mrs. Palmer, whom the King made Lady Castlemaine, and
afterwards Duchess of Cleveland, was one of the most powerful
of the bad women about the Court, and had great influence with
the King nearly all through his reign. Another merry lady
named Moll Davies, a dancer at the theatre, was afterwards her
rival. So was Nell Gwyn, first an orange girl and then an
actress, who really had good in her, and of whom one of the
worst things I know is, that actually she does seem to have
been fond of the King. The first Duke of St. Albans was this
orange girl's child. In like manner the son of a merry
waiting-lady, whom the King created Duchess of Portsmouth,
became the Duke of Richmond.
{894}
Upon the whole it is not so bad a thing to be a commoner. The
Merry Monarch was so exceedingly merry among these merry
ladies, and some equally merry (and equally infamous) lords
and gentlemen, that he soon got through his hundred thousand
pounds, and then, by way of raising a little pocket-money,
made a merry bargain. He sold Dunkirk to the French King for
five millions of livres. When I think of the dignity to which
Oliver Cromwell raised England in the eyes of foreign powers,
and when I think of the manner in which he gained for England
this very Dunkirk, I am much inclined to consider that if the
Merry Monarch had been made to follow his father for this
action, he would have received his just deserts."
C. Dickens,
Child's History of England,
chapter 35.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1661.
Acquisition of Bombay.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1661.
The Savoy Conference.
"The Restoration had been the joint work of Episcopalian and
Presbyterian; would it be possible to reconcile them on this
question too [i. e., of the settlement of Church government]?
The Presbyterian indeed was willing enough for a compromise,
for he had an uneasy feeling that the ground was slipping from
beneath his feet. Of Charles's intentions he was still in
doubt; but he knew that Clarendon was the sworn friend of the
Church. The Churchman on the other hand was eagerly expecting
the approaching hour of triumph. It soon appeared that as King
and Parliament, so King and Church were inseparable in the
English mind; that indeed the return of the King was the
restoration of the Church even more than it was the
restoration of Parliament. In the face of the present
Presbyterian majority however it was necessary to temporise.
The former incumbents of Church livings were restored, and the
Commons took the Communion according to the rites of the
Church; but in other respects the Presbyterians were carefully
kept in play; Charles taking his part in the elaborate farce
by appointing ten of their leading ministers royal chaplains,
and even attending, their sermons." In October, 1660, Charles
"took the matter more completely into his own hands by issuing
a Declaration. Refusing, on the ground of constraint, to admit
the validity of the oaths imposed upon him in Scotland, by
which he was bound to uphold the Covenant, and not concealing
his preference for the Anglican Church, as 'the best fence God
hath yet raised against popery in the world,' he asserted that
nevertheless, to his own knowledge, the Presbyterians were not
enemies to Episcopacy or a set liturgy, and were opposed to
the alienation of Church revenues. The Declaration then went
on to limit the power of bishops and archdeacons in a degree
sufficient to satisfy many of the leading Presbyterians, one
of whom, Reynolds, accepted a bishopric. Charles then proposed
to choose an equal number of learned divines of both
persuasions to discuss alterations in the liturgy; meanwhile
no one was to be troubled regarding differences of practice.
The majority in the Commons at first welcomed the Declaration,
... and a bill was accordingly introduced by Sir Matthew Hale
to turn the Declaration into a law. But Clarendon at any rate
had no intention of thus baulking the Church of her revenge.
Anticipating Hale's action, he had in the interval been busy
in securing a majority against any compromise. The Declaration
had done its work in gaining time, and when the bill was
brought in it was rejected by 183 to 157 votes. Parliament was
at once (December 24) dissolved. The way was now open for the
riot of the Anglican triumph. Even before the new House met
the mask was thrown off by the issuing of an order to the
justices to restore the full liturgy. The conference indeed
took place in the Savoy Palace. It failed, like the Hampton
Court Conference of James I., because it was intended to fail.
Upon the two important points, the authority of bishops and
the liturgy, the Anglicans would not give way an inch. Both
parties informed the King that, anxious as they were for
agreement, they saw no chance of it. This last attempt at
union having fallen through, the Government had their hands
free; and their intentions were speedily made plain."
O. Airy,
The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
chapter 7.
"The Royal Commission [for the Savoy Conference] bore date the
25th of March. It gave the Commissioners authority to review
the Book of Common Prayer, to compare it with the most ancient
Liturgies, to take into consideration all things which it
contained, to consult respecting the exceptions against it,
and by agreement to make such necessary alterations as should
afford satisfaction to tender consciences, and restore to the
Church unity and peace; the instrument appointed 'the Master's
lodgings in the Savoy' as the place of meeting. ... The
Commissioners were summoned to meet upon the 15th of April.
... The Bill of Uniformity, hereafter to be described,
actually passed the House of Commons on the 9th of July, about
a fortnight before the Conference broke up. The proceedings of
a Royal Commission to review the Prayer Book, and make
alterations for the satisfaction of tender consciences were,
by this premature act, really treated with mockery, a
circumstance which could not but exceedingly offend and annoy
the Puritan members, and serve to embitter the language of
Baxter as the end of these fruitless sittings approached."
J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in English,
volume 3, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
E. Calamy,
Nonconformists' Memorial,
introduction, section 3.
W. Orme,
Life and Times of Richard Baxter,
chapter 7.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.
The sale of Dunkirk.
"Unable to confine himself within the narrow limits of his
civil list, with his favorites and mistresses, he [Charles
II.] would have sought even in the infernal regions the gold
which his subjects measured out to him with too parsimonious a
hand. ... [He] proposed to sell to France Dunkirk and its
dependencies, which, he said, cost him too much to keep up. He
asked twelve million francs; he fell at last to five millions,
and the treaty was signed October 27, 1662. It was time; the
Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, informed of the
negotiation, had determined to offer Charles II. whatever he
wished in behalf of their city not to alienate Dunkirk.
Charles dared not retract his word, which would have been, as
D'Estrades told him, to break forever with Louis XIV., and on
the 2d of December Louis joyfully made his entry into his good
city, reconquered by gold instead of the sword."
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
translated by M. L. Booth, chapter 4 (volume 1).
{895}
England: A. D. 1662-1665.
The Act of Uniformity and persecution of the Nonconformists.
The failure of the Savoy Conference "was the conclusion which
had been expected and desired. Charles had already summoned
the Convocation, and to that assembly was assigned the task
which had failed in the hands of the commissioners at the
Savoy. ... The act of uniformity followed [passed by the
Commons July 9, 1661; by the Lords May 8, 1662; receiving the
royal assent May 19, 1662], by which it was enacted that the
revised Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordination of Ministers,
and no other, should be used in all places of public worship;
and that all beneficed clergymen should read the service from
it within a given time, and, at the close, profess in a set
form of words, their 'unfeigned assent and consent to
everything contained and prescribed in it.' ... The act of
uniformity may have been necessary for the restoration of the
church to its former discipline and doctrine; but if such was
the intention of those who framed the declaration from Breda,
they were guilty of infidelity to the king and of fraud to the
people, by putting into his mouth language which, with the aid of
equivocation, they might explain away, and by raising in them
expectations which it was never meant to fulfil."
J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 11, chapter. 4.
"This rigorous act when it passed, gave the ministers, who
could not conform, no longer time than till Bartholomewday,
August 24th, 1662, when they were all cast out. ... This was
an action without a precedent: The like to this the Reformed
church, nay the Christian world, never saw before. Historians
relate, with tragical exclamations, that between three and
four score bishops were driven at once into the island of
Sardinia by the African vandals; that 200 ministers were
banished by Ferdinand, king of Bohemia; and that great havock
was, a few years after, made among the ministers of Germany by
the Imperial Interim. But these all together fall short of the
number ejected by the act of uniformity, which was not less
than 2,000. The succeeding hardships of the latter were also
by far the greatest. They were not only silenced, but had no
room left for any sort of usefulness, and were in a manner
buried alive. Far greater tenderness was used towards the
Popish clergy ejected at the Reformation. They were suffered
to live quietly; but these were oppressed to the utmost, and
that even by their brethren who professed the same faith
themselves: not only excluded preferments, but turned out into
the wide world without any visible way of subsistence. Not so
much as a poor vicarage, not an obscure chapel, not a school
was left them. Nay, though they offered, as some of them did,
to preach gratis, it must not be allowed them. ... The ejected
ministers continued for ten years in a state of silence and
obscurity. ... The act of uniformity took place August the
24th, 1662. On the 26th of December following, the king
published a Declaration, expressing his purpose to grant some
indulgence or liberty in religion. Some of the Nonconformists
were hereupon much encouraged, and waiting privately on the
king, had their hopes confirmed, and would have persuaded
their brethren to have thanked him for his declaration; but
they refused, lest they should make way for the toleration of
the Papists, whom they understood the king intended to include
in it. ... Instead of indulgence or comprehension, on the 30th
of June, an act against private meetings, called the
Conventicle Act, passed the House of Commons, and soon after
was made a law, viz.: 'That every person above sixteen years
of age, present at any meeting, under pretence of any exercise
of religion, in other manner than is the practice of the
church of England, where there are five persons more than the
household, shall for the first offence, by a justice of peace
be recorded, and sent to gaol three months, till he pay £5,
and for the second offence six months, till he pay £10, and
the third time being convicted by a jury, shall be banished to
some of the American plantations, excepting New England or
Virginia." ... In the year 1665 the plague broke out"--and
the ejected ministers boldly took possession for the time of
the deserted London pulpits. "While God was consuming the
people by this judgment, and the Nonconformists were labouring
to save their souls, the parliament, which sat at Oxford, was
busy in making an act [called the Five Mile Act] to render
their case incomparably harder than it was before, by putting
upon them a certain oath ['that it is not lawful, upon any
pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the king,' &c.],
which, if they refused, they must not come (unless upon the
road) within five miles of any city or corporation, any place
that sent burgesses to parliament, any place where they had
been ministers, or had preached after the act of oblivion. ...
When this act came out, those ministers who had any
maintenance of their own, found out some place of residence in
obscure villages, or market-towns, that were not
corporations."
E. Calamy,
The Nonconformist's Memorial,
introduction, sections 4-6.
ALSO IN:
J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 3, chapters 6-9.
D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 4, chapter 6-7.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
The grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury,
and others.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
The King's charter to Rhode Island.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1664.
The conquest of New Netherland (New York).
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1664-1665.
The first refractory symptoms in Massachusetts.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1665.
The grant of New Jersey to Carteret and Berkeley.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1665-1666.
War with Holland renewed.
The Dutch fleet in the Thames.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1668.
The Triple Alliance with Holland and Sweden against Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1668.
Cession of Acadia (Nova Scotia) to France.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.
The secret Catholicism and the perfidy of the King.
His begging of bribes from Louis XIV.
His betrayal of Holland.
His breaking of the Triple Alliance.
In 1668, the royal treasury being greatly embarrassed by the
king's extravagances, an attempt was made "to reduce the
annual expenditure below the amount of the royal income. ...
But this plan of economy accorded not with the royal
disposition, nor did it offer any prospect of extinguishing
the debt. Charles remembered the promise of pecuniary
assistance from France in the beginning of his reign; and,
though his previous efforts to cultivate the friendship of
Louis had been defeated by an unpropitious course of events,
he resolved to renew the experiment.
{896}
Immediately after the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, Buckingham
opened a negotiation with the duchess of Orleans, the king's
sister, in France, and Charles, in his conversations with the
French resident, apologised for his conduct in forming the
triple alliance, and openly expressed his wish to enter into a
closer union, a more intimate friendship, with Louis. ...
About the end of the year the communications between the two
princes became more open and confidential; French money, or
the promise of French money, was received by the English
ministers; the negotiation began to assume a more regular
form, and the most solemn assurances of secrecy were given,
that their real object might be withheld from the knowledge,
or even the suspicion, of the States. In this stage of the
proceedings Charles received an important communication from
his brother James. Hitherto that prince had been an obedient
and zealous son of the Church of England; but Dr. Heylin's
History of the Reformation had shaken his religious credulity,
and the result of the inquiry was a conviction that it became
his duty to reconcile himself with the Church of Rome. He was
not blind to the dangers to which such a change would expose
him; and he therefore purposed to continue outwardly in
communion with the established church, while he attended at
the Catholic service in private. But, to his surprise, he
learned from Symonds, a Jesuit missionary, that no
dispensation could authorise such duplicity of conduct: a
similar answer was returned to the same question from the
pope; and James immediately took his resolution. He
communicated to the king in private that he was determined to
embrace the Catholic faith; and Charles without hesitation
replied that he was of the same mind, and would consult with
the duke on the subject in the presence of lord Arundell, lord
Arlington, and Arlington's confidential friend, sir Thomas
Clifford. ... The meeting was held in the duke's closet.
Charles, with tears in his eyes, lamented the hardship of
being compelled to profess a religion which he did not
approve, declared his determination to emancipate himself from
this restraint, and requested the opinion of those present, as
to the most eligible means of effecting his purpose with
safety and success. They advised him to communicate his
intention to Louis, and to solicit the powerful aid of that
monarch. Here occurs a very interesting question,--was Charles
sincere or not? ... He was the most accomplished dissembler in
his dominions; nor will it be any injustice to his character
to suspect that his real object was to deceive both his
brother and the king of France. ... Now, however, the secret
negotiation proceeded with greater activity; and lord
Arundell, accompanied by sir Richard Bellings, hastened to the
French court. He solicited from Louis the present of a
considerable sum, to enable the king to suppress any
insurrection which might be provoked by his intended
conversion, and offered the co-operation of England in the
projected invasion of Holland, on the condition of an annual
subsidy during the continuation of hostilities." On the advice
of Louis, Charles postponed, for the time being, his intention
to enter publicly the Romish church and thus provoke a
national revolt; but his proposals were otherwise accepted,
and a secret treaty was concluded at Dover, in May, 1670,
through the agency of Charles' sister, Henrietta, the duchess
of Orleans, who came over for that purpose. "Of this treaty,
... though much was afterwards said, little was certainly
known. All the parties concerned, both the sovereigns and the
negotiators, observed an impenetrable secrecy. What became of
the copy transmitted to France is unknown; its counterpart was
confided to the custody of sir Thomas Clifford, and is still
in the keeping of his descendant, the lord Clifford of
Chudleigh. The principal articles were:
1. That the king of England should publicly profess himself
a Catholic at such time as should appear to him most
expedient, and subsequently to that profession should join
with Louis in a war against the Dutch republic at such time
as the most Christian king should judge proper.
2. That to enable the king of England to suppress any
insurrection which might be occasioned by his conversion,
the king of France should grant him an aid of 2,000,000 of
livres, by two payments, one at the expiration of three
months, the other of six months, after the ratification of
the treaty, and should also assist him with an armed force
of 6,000 men, if ... necessary. ...
4. That if, eventually, any new rights on the Spanish
monarchy should accrue to the king of France, the king of
England should aid him with all his power in the
acquisition of those rights. 5. That both princes should
make war on the united provinces, and that neither should
conclude peace or truce with them without the advice and
consent of his ally.".
J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 11, chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11.
O. Airy,
The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
chapter 16.
G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 2 (volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1671.
The Cabal.
"It was remarked that the committee of council, established
for foreign affairs, was entirely changed; and that Prince
Rupert, the Duke of Ormond, Secretary Trevor, and Lord-keeper
Bridgeman, men in whose honour the nation had great
confidence, were never called to any deliberations. The whole
secret was intrusted to five persons, Clifford, Ashley
[afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury], Buckingham, Arlington, and
Lauderdale. These men were known by the appellation of the
Cabal, a word which the initial letters of their names
happened to compose. Never was there a more dangerous ministry
in England, nor one more noted for pernicious counsels."
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter. 65 (volume 6).
See, also, CABINET, THE ENGLISH.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.
The Declaration of Indulgence and the Test Act.
"It would have been impossible to obtain the consent of the
party in the Royal Council which represented the old
Presbyterians, of Ashley or Lauderdale or the Duke of
Buckingham, to the Treaty of Dover. But it was possible to
trick them into approval of a war with Holland by playing on
their desire for a toleration of the Nonconformists. The
announcement of the King's Catholicism was therefore deferred.
... His ministers outwitted, it only remained for Charles to
outwit his Parliament. A large subsidy was demanded for the
fleet, under the pretext of upholding the Triple Alliance, and
the subsidy was no sooner granted than the two Houses were
adjourned.
{897}
Fresh supplies were obtained by closing the Exchequer, and
suspending--under Clifford's advice--the payment of either
principal or interest on loans advanced to the public
treasury. The measure spread bankruptcy among half the
goldsmiths of London; but it was followed in 1672 by one yet
more startling--the Declaration of Indulgence. By virtue of
his ecclesiastical powers, the King ordered 'that all manner
of penal laws on matters ecclesiastical against whatever sort
of Nonconformists or recusants should be from that day
suspended,' and gave liberty of public worship to all
dissidents save Catholics, who were allowed to practice their
religion only in private houses. ... The Declaration of
Indulgence was at once followed by a declaration of war
against the Dutch on the part of both England and France. ...
It was necessary in 1673 to appeal to the Commons [for war
supplies], but the Commons met in a mood of angry distrust.
... There was a general suspicion that a plot was on foot for
the establishment of Catholicism and despotism, and that the
war and the Indulgence were parts of the plot. The change of
temper in the Commons was marked by the appearance of what was
from that time called the Country party, with Lords Russell
and Cavendish and Sir William Coventry at its head--a party
which sympathized with the Nonconformists, but looked on it as
its first duty to guard against the designs of the Court. As to
the Declaration of Indulgence, however, all parties in the
House were at one. The Commons resolved 'that penal statutes
in matters ecclesiastical cannot be suspended but by consent
of Parliament,' and refused supplies till the Declaration was
recalled. The King yielded; but the Declaration was no sooner
recalled than a Test Act was passed through both Houses
without opposition, which required from everyone in the civil
and military employment of the State the oaths of allegiance
and supremacy, a declaration against transubstantiation, and a
reception of the sacrament according to the rites of the
Church of England. Clifford at once counseled resistance, and
Buckingham talked flightily about bringing the army to London,
but Arlington saw that all hope of carrying the 'great plan'
through was at an end, and pressed Charles to yield. ...
Charles sullenly gave way. No measure has ever brought about
more startling results. The Duke of York owned himself a
Catholic, and resigned his office as Lord High Admiral. ...
Clifford, too, ... owned to being a Catholic, and ... laid
down his staff of office. Their resignation was followed by
that of hundreds of others in the army and the civil service
of the Crown. ... The resignations were held to have proved
the existence of the dangers which the Test Act had been
passed to meet. From this moment all trust in Charles was at
an end."
J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 9, section 3.
"It is very true that the [Test Act] pointed only at
Catholics, that it really proposed an anti-Popish test, yet
the construction of it, although it did not exclude from
office such Dissenters as could occasionally conform, did
effectually exclude all who scrupled to do so. Aimed at the
Romanists, it struck the Presbyterians. It is clear that, had
the Nonconformists and the Catholics joined their forces with
those of the Court, in opposing the measure, they might have
defeated it; but the first of these classes for the present
submitted to the inconvenience, from the horror which they
entertained of Popery, hoping, at the same time, that some
relief would be afforded for this personal sacrifice in the
cause of a common Protestantism. Thus the passing of an Act,
which, until a late period, inflicted a social wrong upon two
large sections of the community, is to be attributed to the
course pursued by the very parties whose successors became the
sufferers."
J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 3, chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 4, chapter 8, and volume 5, chapter 1.
J. Collier,
Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain,
part 2, book 9 (volume 8).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1674.
Alliance with Louis XIV. of France in war with Holland.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1673.
Loss of New York, retaken by the Dutch.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1674.
Peace with the Dutch.
Treaty of Westminster.
Recovery of New York.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1675-1688.
Concessions to France in Newfoundland.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.
The Popish Plot.
"There was an uneasy feeling in the nation that it was being
betrayed, and just then [August, 1678] a strange story caused
a panic throughout all England. A preacher of low character,
named Titus Oates, who had gone over to the Jesuits, declared
that he knew of a plot among the Catholics to kill the king
and set up a Catholic Government. He brought his tale to a
magistrate, named Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey, and shortly
afterwards [October 17] Godfrey was found murdered in a ditch
near St. Pancras Church. The people thought that the Catholics
had murdered him to hush up the 'Popish plot,' and when
Parliament met a committee was appointed to examine into the
matter. Some papers belonging to a Jesuit named Coleman
alarmed them, and so great was the panic that an Act was
passed shutting out all Catholics, except the Duke of York,
from Parliament. After this no Catholic sat in either House
for a hundred and fifty years. But worse followed. Oates
became popular, and finding tale-bearing successful, he and
other informers went on to swear away the lives of a great
number of innocent Catholics. The most noted of these was Lord
Stafford, an upright and honest peer, who was executed in
1681, declaring his innocence. Charles laughed among his
friends at the whole matter, but let it go on, and
Shaftesbury, who wished to turn out Lord Danby, did all he
could to fan the flame."
A. B. Buckley,
History of England for Beginners,
chapter 19.
"The capital and the whole nation went mad with hatred and
fear. The penal laws, which had begun to lose something of
their edge, were sharpened anew. Everywhere justices were
busied in searching houses and seizing papers. All the gaols
were filled with Papists. London had the aspect of a city in a
state of siege. The train bands were under arms all night.
Preparations were made for barricading the great
thoroughfares. Patroles marched up and down the streets.
Cannon were planted round Whitehall. No citizen thought
himself safe unless he carried under his coat a small flail
loaded with lead to brain the Popish assassins."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter. 2 (volume 1).
{898}
"It being expected that printed Bibles would soon become rare,
or locked up in an unknown tongue, many honest people, struck
with the alarm, employed themselves in copying the Bible into
short-hand that they might not be destitute of its
consolations in the hour of calamity. ... It was about the
year 1679 that the famous King's Head Club was formed, so
named from its being held at the King's Head Tavern in Fleet
Street. ... They were terrorists and spread alarm with great
effect. It was at this club that silk armour, pistol proof,
was recommended as a security against assassination at the
hands of the Papists; and the particular kind of
life-preserver of that day, called a Protestant flail, was
introduced."
G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapter 5 (volume 1).
"And now commenced, before the courts of justice and the upper
house, a sombre prosecution of the catholic lords Arundel,
Petre, Stafford, Powis, Bellasis, the Jesuits Coleman,
Ireland, Grieve, Pickering, and, in succession, all who were
implicated by the indefatigable denunciations of Titus Oates
and Bedloe. Unhappily, these courts of justice, desiring, in
common with the whole nation, to condemn rather than to
examine, wanted neither elements which might, if strictly
acted upon, establish legal proof of conspiracy against some
of the accused, nor terrible laws to destroy them when found
guilty. And it was here that a spectacle, at first imposing,
became horrible. No friendly voice arose to save those men who
were guilty only of impracticable wishes, of extravagant
conceptions. The king, the duke of York, the French
ambassador, thoroughly acquainted as they were with the real
nature of these imputed crimes, remained silent; they were
thoroughly cowed."
A. Carrel,
History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
part 1, chapter 4.
"Although, ... upon a review of this truly shocking
transaction, we may be fairly justified ... in imputing to the
greater part of those concerned in it, rather an extraordinary
degree of blind credulity than the deliberate wickedness of
planning and assisting in the perpetration of legal murders;
yet the proceedings on the popish plot must always be
considered as an indelible disgrace upon the English nation,
in which king, parliament, judges, juries, witnesses,
prosecutors, have all their respective, though certainly not
equal, shares."
C. J. Fox,
History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II.,
introduction, ch.
"In this dreadful scene of wickedness, it is difficult not to
assign the pre-eminence of guilt to Anthony Ashley Cooper,
earl of Shaftesbury. If he did not first contrive, he
certainly availed himself of the revelations of Oates, to work
up the nation to the fury which produced the subsequent
horrors. ... In extenuation of the delusion of the populace,
something may be offered. The defamation of half a century had
made the catholics the objects of protestant odium and
distrust: and these had been increased by the accusation,
artfully and assiduously fomented, of their having been the
authors of the fire of the city of London. The publication,
too, of Coleman's letters, certainly announced a considerable
activity in the catholics to promote the catholic religion;
and contained expressions, easily distorted to the sense, in
which the favourers of the belief of the plot wished them to
be understood. Danby's correspondence, likewise, which had
long been generally known, and was about this time made
public, had discovered that Charles was in the pay of France.
These, with several other circumstances, had inflamed the
imaginations of the public to the very highest pitch. A
dreadful something (and not the less dreadful because its
precise nature was altogether unknown), was generally
apprehended. ... For their supposed part in the plot, ten
laymen and seven priests, one of whom was seventy, another
eighty, years of age, were executed. Seventeen others were
condemned, but not executed. Some died in prison, and some
were pardoned. On the whole body of catholics the laws were
executed with horrible severity."
C. Butler,
Historical Memoirs of the English Catholics,
chapter 32, section 3 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
chapter 89 (volume 3).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (May).
The Habeas Corpus Act.
"Arbitrary imprisonment is a grievance which, in some degree,
has place in almost every government, except in that of Great
Britain; and our absolute security from it we owe chiefly to
the present Parliament; a merit which makes some atonement for
the faction and violence into which their prejudices had, in
other particulars, betrayed them. The great charter had laid
the foundation of this valuable part of liberty; the petition
of right had renewed and extended it; but some provisions were
still wanting to render it complete, and prevent all evasion
or delay from ministers and judges. The act of habeas corpus,
which passed this session, served these purposes. By this act
it was prohibited to send anyone to a prison beyond sea. No
judge, under severe penalties, must refuse to any prisoner a
writ of habeas corpus, by which the gaoler was directed to
produce in court the body of the prisoner (whence the writ has
its name), and to certify the cause of his detainer and
imprisonment. If the gaol lie within twenty miles of the
judge, the writ must be obeyed in three days; and so
proportionably for greater distances; every prisoner must be
indicted the first term after his commitment, and brought to
trial in the subsequent term. And no man, after being enlarged
by order of court, can be recommitted for the same offence."
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 67 (volume 6).
"The older remedies serving as a safeguard against unlawful
imprisonment, were--
1. The writ of Mainprise, ensuring the delivery of the accused
to a friend of the same, who gave security to answer for his
appearance before the court when required, and in token of
such undertaking he held him by the hand ('le prit par le
main').
2. The writ 'De odio et atiâ,' i. e., of hatred and malice,
which, though not abolished, has long since been antiquated.
... It directed the sheriff to make inquisition in the county
court whether the imprisonment proceeded from malice or not.
...
3. The writ 'De homine replegiando,' or replevying a man, that
is, delivering him out on security to answer what may be
objected against him.
A writ is, originally, a royal writing,
either an open patent addressed to all to whom it may come,
and issued under the great seal; or, 'litteræ clausæ,' a
sealed letter addressed to a particular person; such writs
were prepared in the royal courts or in the Court of Chancery.
The most usual instrument of protection, however, against
arbitrary imprisonment is the writ of 'Habeas corpus,' so
called from its beginning with the words, 'Habeas corpus ad
subjiciendum,' which, on account of its universal application
and the security it affords, has, insensibly, taken precedence
of all others.
{899}
This is an old writ of the common law, and must be prayed for
in any of the Superior courts of common law. ... But this writ
. . . proved but a feeble, or rather wholly ineffectual
protection against the arbitrary power of the sovereign. The
right of an English subject to a writ of habeas corpus, and to
a release from imprisonment unless sufficient cause be shown
for his detention, was fully canvassed in the first years of
the reign of Charles I. ... The parliament endeavoured to
prevent such arbitrary imprisonment by passing the 'Petition
of Right,' which enacted that no freeman, in any such manner
... should be imprisoned or detained. Even this act was found
unavailing against the malevolent interpretations put by the
judges; hence the 16 Charles I., c. 10, was passed, which
enacts, that when any person is restrained of his liberty by
the king in person, or by the Privy Council, or any member
thereof, he shall, on demand of his counsel, have a writ of
habeas corpus, and, three days after the writ, shall be
brought before the court to determine whether there is ground
for further imprisonment, for bail, or for his release.
Notwithstanding these provisions, the immunity of English
subjects from arbitrary detention was not ultimately
established in full practical efficiency until the passing of
the statute of Charles II., commonly called the 'Habeas Corpus
Act.'"
E. Fischel,
The English Constitution,
book 1, chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
Sir W. Blackstone,
Commentaries on the Laws of England,
book 3, chapter 8.
H. J. Stephen,
Commentaries,
book 5, chapter 12, section 5 (volume 4).
The following is the text of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679:
I. Whereas great Delays have been used by Sheriffs, Gaolers
and other Officers, to whose Custody any of the King's
Subjects have been committed, for criminal or supposed
criminal Matters, in making Returns of Writs of Habeas Corpus
to them directed, by standing out an Alias and Pluries Habeas
Corpus, and sometimes more, and by other Shifts, to avoid
their yielding Obedience to such Writs, contrary to their
Duty, and the known Laws of the Land, whereby many of the
King's Subjects have been, and hereafter may be long detained
in Prison, in such cases where by Law they are bailable, to
their great Charges and Vexation.
II. For the Prevention whereof, and the more speedy Relief of
all Persons imprisoned for any such Criminal, or supposed
Criminal Matters: (2.) Be it Enacted by the King's most
Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present
Parliament assembled, and by the Authority thereof, that
whensoever any Person or Persons shall bring any Habeas Corpus
directed unto any Sheriff, or Sheriffs, Gaoler, Minister, or
other Person whatsoever, for any Person in his or their
Custody, and the said Writ shall be served upon the said
Officer, or left at the Gaol or Prison, with any of the under
Officers, under Keepers, or Deputy of the said Officers or