Keepers, that the said Officer or Officers, his or their Under
Officers, Under Keepers or Deputies, shall within three Days
after the Service thereof, as aforesaid (unless the Commitment
aforesaid were for Treason or Felony, plainly and specially
expressed in the Warrant of Commitment), upon Payment or
Tender of the Charges of bringing the said Prisoner, to be
ascertained by the Judge or Court that awarded the same, and
endorsed upon the said Writ, not exceeding Twelve-pence per
Mile, and upon Security given by his own Bond, to pay the
Charges of carrying back the Prisoner, if he shall be remanded
by the Court or Judge, to which he shall be brought, according
to the true Intent of this present Act, and that he will not
make any Escape by the way, make Return of such Writ. (3.) And
bring or cause to be brought the Body of the Party so
committed or restrained, unto or before the Lord Chancellor,
or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England for the time
being, or the Judges or Barons of the said Court from whence
the said Writ shall Issue, or unto and before such other
Person or Persons before whom the said Writ is made
returnable, according to the Command thereof. (4.) And shall
then likewise certifie the true causes of his Detainer, or
Imprisonment, unless the commitment of the said party be in
any place beyond the Distance of twenty Miles from the Place
or Places where such Court or Person is, or shall be residing;
and if beyond the Distance of twenty Miles, and not above One
Hundred Miles, then within the Space of Ten Days, and if
beyond the Distance of One Hundred Miles, then within the
space of Twenty Days, after such Delivery aforesaid, and not
longer.
III. And to the Intent that no Sheriff, Gaoler or other
Officer may pretend Ignorance of the Import of any such Writ,
(2.) Be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all such
Writs shall be marked in this manner, Per Statutum Tricesimo
Primo Caroli Secundi Regis, and shall be signed by the Person
that awards the same. (3.) And if any Person or Persons shall
be or stand committed or detained, as aforesaid, for any
Crime, unless for Felony or Treason, plainly expressed in the
Warrant of Commitment, in the Vacation-time, and out of Term,
it shall and may be lawful to and for the Person or Persons so
committed or detained (other than Persons convict, or in
Execution by legal Process) or anyone on his or their Behalf,
to appeal, or complain to the Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper,
or anyone of His Majesty's Justices, either of the one Bench,
or of the other, or the Barons of the Exchequer of the Degree
of the Coif. (4.) And the said Lord Chancellor, Lord Keeper,
Justices, or Barons, or any of them, upon View of the Copy or
Copies of the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment and Detainer,
or otherwise upon Oath made, that such Copy or Copies were
denied to be given by such Person or Persons in whose custody
the Prisoner or Prisoners is or are detained, are hereby
authorized and required, upon Request made in Writing by such
Person or Persons, or any on his, her, or their Behalf,
attested and subscribed by two Witnesses, who were present at
the Delivery of the same, to award and grant an Habeas Corpus
under the Seal of such Court, whereof he shall then be one of
the Judges, (5.) to be directed to the Officer or Officers in
whose Custody the Party so committed or detained shall be,
returnable immediate before the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord
Keeper, or such Justice, Baron, or any other Justice or Baron,
of the Degree of the Coif, of any of the said Courts. (6.) And
upon Service thereof as aforesaid, the Officer or Officers,
his or their under Officer or under Officers, under Keeper or
under Keepers, or their Deputy, in whose Custody the Party is
so committed or detained, shall within the times respectively
before limited, bring such Prisoner or Prisoners before the
said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, or such Justices, Barons,
or one of them, before whom the said Writ is made returnable,
and in case of his Absence, before any of them, with the
Return of such Writ, and the true Causes of the Commitment and
Detainer.
{900}
(7.) And thereupon within two Days after the Party shall be
brought before them the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper,
or such Justice or Baron, before whom the Prisoner shall be
brought as aforesaid, shall discharge the said Prisoner from
his Imprisonment, taking his or their Recognizance, with one
or more Surety or Sureties, in any Sum, according to their
Discretions, having regard to the Quality of the Prisoner, and
Nature of the Offence, for his or their Appearance in the
Court of King's Bench the Term following, or at the next
Assizes, Sessions, or general Gaol-Delivery, of and for such
County, City or Place, where the Commitment was, or where the
Offence was committed, or in such other Court where the said
Offence is properly cognizable, as the Case shall require, and
then shall certify the said Writ with the Return thereof, and
the said Recognizance or Recognizances into the said Court,
where such Appearance is to be made. (8.) Unless it shall
appear unto the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, or
Justice, or Justices, or Baron or Barons, that the Party so
committed is detained upon a legal Process, Order, or Warrant
out of some Court that hath Jurisdiction of Criminal Matters,
or by some Warrant signed and sealed with the Hand and Seal of
any of the said Justices or Barons, or some Justice or
Justices of the Peace, for such Matters or Offences, for the
which by the Law, the Prisoner is not bailable.
IV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any Person
shall have wilfully neglected by the Space of two whole Terms
after his Imprisonment to pray a Habeas Corpus for his
Enlargement, such Person so wilfully neglecting, shall not
have any Habeas Corpus to be granted in Vacation-time in
Pursuance of this Act.
V. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That
if any Officer or Officers, his or their under Officer, or
under Officers, under Keeper or under Keepers, or Deputy,
shall neglect or refuse to make the Returns aforesaid, or to
bring the Body or Bodies of the Prisoner or Prisoners,
according to the Command of the said Writ, within the
respective times aforesaid, or upon Demand made by the
Prisoner, or Person in his Behalf, shall refuse to deliver, or
within the Space of six Hours after Demand shall not deliver,
to the Person so demanding, a true Copy of the Warrant or
Warrants of Commitment and Detainer of such Prisoner, which he
and they are hereby required to deliver accordingly; all and
every the Head Gaolers and Keepers of such Prisons, and such
other Person, in whose Custody the Prisoner shall be detained,
shall for the first Offence, forfeit to the Prisoner, or Party
grieved, the Sum of One Hundred Pounds. (2.) And for the
second Offence, the Sum of Two Hundred Pounds, and shall and
is hereby made incapable to hold or execute his said Office.
(3.) The said Penalties to be recovered by the Prisoner or
Party grieved, his Executors or Administrators, against such
Offender, his Executors or Administrators, by any Action of
Debt, Suit, Bill, Plaint or Information, in any of the King's
Courts at Westminster, wherein no Essoin, Protection,
Priviledge, Injunction, Wager of Law, or stay of Prosecution,
by Non vult ulterius prosequi, or otherwise, shall be admitted
or allowed, or any more than one Imparlance. (4.) And any
Recovery or Judgment at the Suit of any Party grieved, shall
be a sufficient Conviction for the first Offence; and any
after Recovery or Judgment at the Suit of a Party grieved, for
any Offence after the first Judgment, shall be a sufficient
Conviction to bring the Officers or Person within the said
Penalty for the Second Offence.
VI. And for the Prevention of unjust Vexation, by reiterated
Commitments for the same offence; (2.) Be it enacted by the
Authority aforesaid, That no Person or Persons, which shall be
delivered or set at large upon any Habeas Corpus, shall at any
time hereafter be again imprisoned or committed for the same
Offence, by any Person or Persons whatsoever, other than by
the legal Order and Process of such Court wherein he or they
shall be bound by Recognizance to appear, or other Court
having Jurisdiction of the Cause. (3.) And if any other Person
or Persons shall knowingly, contrary to this Act, recommit or
imprison, or knowingly procure or cause to be recommitted or
imprisoned for the same Offence, or pretended Offence, any
Person or Persons delivered or set at large as aforesaid, or
be knowingly aiding or assisting therein, then he or they
shall forfeit to the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of
Five Hundred Pounds; any colourable Pretence or Variation in
the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment notwithstanding, to be
recovered as aforesaid.
VII. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That if any
Person or Persons shall be committed for High Treason or
Felony, plainly and specially expressed in the Warrant of
Commitment, upon his Prayer or Petition in open Court the
first Week of the Term, or first Day of the Sessions of Oyer
and Terminer, or general Gaol Delivery, to be brought to his
Tryal, shall not be indicted sometime in the next Term,
Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery after
such Commitment, it shall and may be lawful to and for the
Judges of the Court of King's Bench, and Justices of Oyer and
Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery, and they are hereby
required, upon Motion to them made in open Court the last Day
of the Term, Sessions or Gaol-Delivery, either by the
Prisoner, or anyone in his Behalf, to set at Liberty the
Prisoner upon Bail, unless it appear to the Judges and
Justices upon Oath made, that the Witnesses for the King could
not be produced the same Term, Sessions, or general
Gaol-Delivery. (2.) And if any Person or Persons committed as
aforesaid, upon his Prayer or Petition in open Court, the
first Week of the Term, or first Day of the Sessions of Oyer
and Terminer, and general Gaol-Delivery, to be brought to his
Tryal, shall not be indicted and tryed the second Term,
Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery, after
his Commitment, or upon his Tryal shall be acquitted, he shall
be discharged from his Imprisonment.
VIII. Provided always, that nothing in this Act shall extend
to discharge out of Prison, any Person charged in Debt, or
other Action, or with Process in any Civil Cause, but that
after he shall be discharged of his Imprisonment for such his
criminal Offence, he shall be kept in Custody, according to
the Law for such other Suit.
{901}
IX. Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority
aforesaid, That if any Person or Persons, Subjects of this
Realm, shall be committed to any Prison, or in Custody of any
Officer or Officers whatsoever, for any Criminal or supposed
Criminal Matter, that the said Person shall not be removed
from the said Prison and Custody, into the Custody of any
other Officer or Officers. (2.) Unless it be by Habeas Corpus,
or some other legal Writ; or where the Prisoner is delivered
to the Constable or other inferiour Officer, to carry such
Prisoner to some common Gaol. (3.) Or where any Person is sent
by Order of any Judge of Assize, or Justice of the Peace, to
any common Workhouse, or House of Correction. (4.) Or where
the Prisoner is removed from one Prison or Place to another
within the same County, in order to his or her Tryal or
Discharge in due Course of Law. (5.) Or in case of sudden
Fire, or Infection, or other Necessity. (6.) And if any Person
or Persons shall after such Commitment aforesaid, make out and
sign, or countersign, any Warrant or Warrants for such Removal
aforesaid, contrary to this Act, as well he that makes or
signs, or countersigns, such Warrant or Warrants, as the
Officer or Officers, that obey or execute the same, shall
suffer & incur the Pains & Forfeitures in this Act
before-mentioned, both for the 1st & 2nd Offence,
respectively, to be recover'd in manner aforesaid, by the
Party grieved.
X. Provided also, and be it further enacted by the Authority
aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful to and for any
Prisoner & Prisoners as aforesaid, to move, and obtain his or
their Habeas Corpus, as well out of the High Court of
Chancery, or Court of Exchequer, as out of the Courts of
King's Bench, or Common Pleas, or either of them. (2.) And if
the said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, or any Judge or
Judges, Baron or Barons for the time being, of the Degree of
the Coif, of any of the Courts aforesaid, in the Vacation
time, upon view of the Copy or Copies of the Warrant or
Warrants of Commitment or Detainer, or upon Oath made that
such Copy or Copies were denied as aforesaid, shall deny any
Writ of Habeas Corpus by this Act required to be granted,
being moved for as aforesaid, they shall severally forfeit to
the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds,
to be recovered in manner aforesaid.
XI. And be it declared and enacted by the Authority aforesaid,
That an Habeas Corpus according to the true Intent and meaning
of this Act, may be directed, and run into any County
Palatine, the Cinque Ports, or other priviledged Places,
within the Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of
Berwick upon Tweed, and the Isles of Jersey or Guernsey, any
Law or Usage to the contrary notwithstanding.
XII. And for preventing illegal Imprisonments in Prisons
beyond the Seas; (2.) Be it further enacted by the Authority
aforesaid, That no Subject of this Realm that now is, or
hereafter shall be, an Inhabitant or Resiant of this Kingdom
of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed,
shall or may be sent Prisoner into Scotland, Ireland, Jersey,
Guernsey, Tangier, or into Parts, Garrisons, Islands, or
Places beyond the Seas, which are, or at any time hereafter
shall be within or without the Dominions of his Majesty, his
Heirs or Successors. (3.) And that every such Imprisonment is
hereby enacted and adjudged to be illegal. (4.) And that if
any of the said Subjects now is, or hereafter shall be so
imprisoned, every such Person and Persons so imprisoned, shall
and may for every such Imprisonment, maintain by Virtue of
this Act, an Action or Actions of False Imprisonment, in any
of his Majesty's Courts of Record, against the Person or
Persons by whom he or she shall be so committed, detained,
imprisoned, sent Prisoner or transported, contrary to the true
meaning of this Act, and against all or any Person or Persons,
that shall frame, contrive, write, seal or countersign any
Warrant or Writing for such Commitment, Detainer, Imprisonment
or Transportation, or shall be advising, aiding or assisting
in the same, or any of them. (5.) And the Plaintiff in every
such Action, shall have judgment to recover his treble Costs,
besides Damages; which Damages so to be given, shall not be
less than Five Hundred Pounds. (6.) In which Action, no Delay,
Stay, or Stop of Proceeding, by Rule, Order or Command, nor no
Injunction, Protection, or Priviledge whatsoever, nor any more
than one Imparlance shall be allowed, excepting such Rule of
the Court wherein the Action shall depend, made in open Court,
as shall be thought in justice necessary, for special Cause to
be expressed in the said Rule. (7.) And the Person or Persons
who shall knowingly frame, contrive, write, seal or
countersign any Warrant for such Commitment, Detainer, or
Transportation, or shall so commit, detain, imprison, or
transport any Person or Persons contrary to this Act, or be
any ways advising, aiding or assisting therein, being lawfully
convicted thereof, shall be disabled from thenceforth to bear
any Office of Trust or Profit within the said Realm of
England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed, or
any of the Islands, Territories or Dominions thereunto
belonging. (8.) And shall incur and sustain the Pains,
Penalties, and Forfeitures, limited, ordained, and Provided in
and by the Statute of Provision and Premunire made in the
Sixteenth Year of King Richard the Second. (9.) And be
incapable of any Pardon from the King, his Heirs or
Successors, of the said Forfeitures, Losses, or Disabilities,
or any of them.
XIII. Provided always, That nothing in this Act shall extend
to give Benefit to any Person who shall by Contract in
Writing, agree with any Merchant or Owner, of any Plantation,
or other Person whatsoever, to be transported to any part
beyond the Seas, and receive Earnest upon such Agreement,
altho' that afterwards such Person shall renounce such
Contract.
XIV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any Person or
Persons, lawfully convicted of any Felony, shall in open Court
pray to be transported beyond the Seas, and the Court shall
think fit to leave him or them in Prison for that Purpose,
such Person or Persons may be transported into any Parts
beyond the Seas; This Act, or any thing therein contained to
the contrary notwithstanding.
XV. Provided also, and be it enacted, That nothing herein
contained, shall be deemed, construed, or taken to extend to
the Imprisonment of any Person before the first Day of June,
One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy and Nine, or to any thing
advised, procured, or otherwise done, relating to such
Imprisonment; Any thing herein contained to the contrary
notwithstanding.
{902}
XVI. Provided also, That if any Person or Persons, at any time
resiant in this Realm, shall have committed any Capital
Offence in Scotland or Ireland, or any of the Islands, or
foreign Plantations of the King, his Heirs or Successors,
where he or she ought to be tryed for such Offence, such
Person or Persons may be sent to such Place, there to receive
such Tryal, in such manner as the same might have been used
before the making this Act; Any thing herein contained to the
contrary notwithstanding.
XVII. Provided also, and be it enacted, That no Person or
Persons, shall be sued, impleaded, molested or troubled for
any Offence against this Act, unless the Party offending be
sued or impleaded for the same within two Years at the most
after such time wherein the Offence shall be committed, in
Case the Party grieved shall not be then in Prison; and if he
shall be in Prison, then within the space of two Years after
the Decease of the Person imprisoned, or his, or her Delivery
out of Prison, which shall first happen.
XVIII. And to the Intent no Person may avoid his Tryal at the
Assizes, or general Gaol Delivery, by procuring his Removal
before the Assizes at such time as he cannot be brought back
to receive his Tryal there; (2.) Be it enacted, That after the
Assizes proclaimed for that County where the Prisoner is
detained, no Person shall be removed from the Common Gaol upon
any Habeas Corpus granted in pursuance of this Act, but upon
any such Habeas Corpus shall be brought before the Judge of
Assize in open Court, who is thereupon to do what to Justice
shall appertain.
XIX. Provided nevertheless, That after the Assizes are ended,
any Person or Persons detained may have his or her Habeas
Corpus, according to the Direction and Intention of this Act.
XX. And be it also enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if
any Information, Suit or Action, shall be brought or exhibited
against any Person or Persons, for any Offence committed or to
be committed against the Form of this Law, it shall be lawful
for such Defendants to plead the general Issue, that they are
not guilty, or that they owe nothing, and to give such special
Matter in Evidence to the Jury, that shall try the same, which
Matter being pleaded, had been good and sufficient matter in
Law to have discharged the said Defendant or Defendants
against the said Information, Suit or Action, and the said
Matter shall be then as available to him or them, to all
Intents and Purposes, as if he or they had sufficiently
pleaded, set forth, or alleged the same Matter in Bar, or
Discharge of such Information, Suit or Action.
XXI. And because many times Persons charged with Petty-Treason
or Felony, or as Accessaries thereunto, are committed upon
Suspicion only, whereupon they are bailable or not, according
as the Circumstances making out that Suspicion are more or
less weighty, which are best known to the Justices of Peace
that committed the Persons, and have the Examinations before
them, or to other Justices of the Peace in the County; (2.) Be
it therefore enacted, That where any Person shall appear to be
committed by any Judge, or Justice of the Peace, and charged
as necessary before the Fact, to any Petty-Treason or Felony,
or upon Suspicion thereof, or with Suspicion of Petty-Treason
or Felony, which Petty-Treason or Felony, shall be plainly and
specially expressed in the Warrant of Commitment, that such
Person shall not be removed or bailed by Virtue of this Act,
or in any other manner than they might have been before the
making of this Act.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (June).
The Meal-tub Plot.
"Dangerfield, a subtle and dexterous man, who had gone through
all the shapes and practices of roguery, and in particular was
a false coiner, undertook now to coin a plot for the ends of
the papists. He ... got into all companies, and mixed with the
hottest men of the town, and studied to engage others with
himself to swear that they had been invited to accept of
commissions, and that a new form of government was to be set
up, and that the king and the royal family were to be sent
away. He was carried with this story, first to the duke, and
then to the king, and had a weekly allowance of money, and was
very kindly used by many of that side; so that a whisper run
about town, that some extraordinary thing would quickly break
out: and he having some correspondence with one colonel
Mansel, he made up a bundle of seditious but ill contrived
letters, and laid them in a dark corner of his room: and then
some searchers were sent from the custom house to look for
some forbidden goods, which they heard were in Mansel's
chamber. There were no goods found: but as it was laid, they
found that bundle of letters: and upon that a great noise was
made of a discovery: but upon inquiry it appeared the letters
were counterfeited, and the forger of them was suspected; so
they searched into all Dangerfield's haunts, and in one of
them they found a paper that contained the scheme of this
whole fiction, which, because it was found in a meal-tub, came
to be called the meal-tub plot. ... This was a great disgrace
to the popish party, and the king suffered much by the
countenance he had given him."
G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 3, 1679.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1679-1681.
The Exclusion Bill.
"Though the duke of York was not charged with participation in
the darkest schemes of the popish conspirators, it was evident
that his succession was the great aim of their endeavours, and
evident also that he had been engaged in the more real and
undeniable intrigues of Coleman. His accession to the throne,
long viewed with just apprehension, now seemed to threaten
such perils to every part of the constitution as ought not
supinely to be waited for, if any means could be devised to
obviate them. This gave rise to the bold measure of the
exclusion bill, too bold, indeed, for the spirit of the
country, and the rock on which English liberty was nearly
shipwrecked. In the long parliament, full as it was of
pensioners and creatures of court influence, nothing so
vigorous would have been successful. ... But the zeal they
showed against Danby induced the king to put an end [January
24, 1679] to this parliament of seventeen years' duration; an
event long ardently desired by the popular party, who foresaw
their ascendancy in the new elections. The next house of
commons accordingly came together with an ardour not yet
quenched by corruption; and after reviving the impeachments
commenced by their predecessors, and carrying a measure long
in agitation, a test which shut the catholic peers out of
parliament, went upon the exclusion bill [the second reading
of which was carried, May 21, 1679, by 207 to 128].
{903}
Their dissolution put a stop to this; and in the next
parliament the lords rejected it [after the commons had passed
the bill, without a division, October, 1680]. ... The bill of
exclusion ... provided that the imperial crown of England
should descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons
successively during the life of the duke of York as would have
inherited or enjoyed the same in case he were naturally dead.
... But a large part of the opposition had unfortunately other
objects in view." Under the contaminating influence of the
earl of Shaftesbury, "they broke away more and more from the
line of national opinion, till a fatal reaction involved
themselves in ruin, and exposed the cause of public liberty to
its most imminent peril. The countenance and support of
Shaftesbury brought forward that unconstitutional and most
impolitic scheme of the duke of Monmouth's succession. [James,
duke of Monmouth, was the acknowledged natural son of king
Charles, by Lucy Walters, his mistress while in exile at the
Hague.] There could hardly be a greater insult to a nation
used to respect its hereditary line of kings, than to set up
the bastard of a prostitute, without the least pretence of
personal excellence or public services, against a princess of
known virtue and attachment to the protestant religion. And
the effrontery of this attempt was aggravated by the libels
eagerly circulated to dupe the credulous populace into a
belief of Monmouth's legitimacy."
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
A. Carrel,
History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
part 2, chapter 1.
G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapter 4-8 (volume 1).
G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 3, 1679-81.
Sir W. Temple,
Memoirs,
part 3 (Works, volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1680.
Whigs and Tories acquire their respective names.
"Factions indeed were at this time [A. D. 1680] extremely
animated against each other. The very names by which each
party denominated its antagonist discover the virulence and
rancour which prevailed. For besides petitioner and abhorrer,
appellations which were soon forgotten, this year is
remarkable for being the epoch of the well-known epithets of
Whig and Tory, by which, and sometimes without any material
difference, this island has been so long divided. The court
party reproached their antagonists with their affinity to the
fanatical conventiclers in Scotland, who were known by the
name of Whigs: the country party found a resemblance between
the courtiers and the popish banditti in Ireland, to whom the
appellation of Tory was affixed: and after this manner these
foolish terms of reproach came into public and general use."
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 68 (volume 6).
"The definition of the nickname Tory, as it originally arose,
is given in 'A New Ballad' (Narcissus Luttrell's
Collection):--
The word Tory's of Irish Extraction,
'Tis a Legacy that they have left here
They came here in their brogues,
And have acted like Rogues,
In endeavouring to learn us to swear."
J. Grego,
History of Parliamentary Elections,
page 36.
ALSO IN:
G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 1, chapter 2.
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 2.
For the origin of the name of the 'Whig party,
See WHIGS (WIGGAMORS); also, RAPPAREES.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.
The Tory reaction and the downfall of the Whigs.
The Rye-house Plot.
"Shaftesbury's course rested wholly on the belief that the
penury of the Treasury left Charles at his mercy, and that a
refusal of supplies must wring from the King his assent to the
exclusion. But the gold of France had freed the King from his
thraldom. He had used the Parliament [of 1681] simply to
exhibit himself as a sovereign whose patience and conciliatory
temper was rewarded with insult and violence; and now that he
saw his end accomplished, he suddenly dissolved the Houses in
April, and appealed in a Royal declaration to the justice of
the nation at large. The appeal was met by an almost universal
burst of loyalty. The Church rallied to the King; his
declaration was read from every pulpit; and the Universities
solemnly decided that 'no religion, no law, no fault, no
forfeiture' could avail to bar the sacred right of hereditary
succession. ... The Duke of York returned in triumph to St.
James's. ... Monmouth, who had resumed his progresses through
the country as a means of checking the tide of reaction, was
at once arrested. ... Shaftesbury, alive to the new danger,
plunged desperately into conspiracies with a handful of
adventurers as desperate as himself, hid himself in the City,
where he boasted that ten thousand 'brisk boys' were ready to
appear at his call, and urged his friends to rise in arms. But
their delays drove him to flight. ... The flight of
Shaftesbury proclaimed the triumph of the King. His wonderful
sagacity had told him when the struggle was over and further
resistance useless. But the Whig leaders, who had delayed to
answer the Earl's call, still nursed projects of rising in
arms, and the more desperate spirits who had clustered around
him as he lay hidden in the City took refuge in plots of
assassination, and in a plan for murdering Charles and his
brother as they passed the Rye-house [a Hertfordshire farm
house, so-called] on their road from London to Newmarket. Both
the conspiracies were betrayed, and, though they were wholly
distinct from one another, the cruel ingenuity of the Crown
lawyers blended them into one. Lord Essex, the last of an
ill-fated race, saved himself from a traitor's death by
suicide in the Tower. Lord Russell, convicted on a charge of
sharing in the Rye-house Plot, was beheaded in Lincoln Inn
Fields. The same fate awaited Algernon Sidney. Monmouth fled
in terror over sea, and his flight was followed by a series of
prosecutions for sedition directed against his followers. In 1683
the Constitutional opposition which had held Charles so long
in check lay crushed at his feet. ... On the very day when the
crowd around Russell's scaffold were dipping their
handkerchiefs in his blood, as in the blood of a martyr, the
University of Oxford solemnly declared that the doctrine of
passive obedience, even to the worst of rulers, was a part of
religion." During the brief remainder of his reign Charles was
a prudently absolute monarch, governing without a Parliament,
coolly ignoring the Triennial Act, and treating on occasions
the Test Act, as well as other laws obnoxious to him, with
contempt. He died unexpectedly, early in February, 1685, and
his brother, the Duke of York, succeeded to the throne, as
James II., with no resistance, but with much feeling opposed
to him.
J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 9, sections 5-6.
{904}
ALSO IN:
G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth;
chapters 8-10 (volume 1).
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapters 68-69 (volume 6).
G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 1, chapters 6-11.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685.
Accession of James II.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (February).
The new King proclaims his religion.
"The King [James II.] early put the loyalty of his Protestant
friends to the proof. While he was a subject, he had been in
the habit of hearing mass with closed doors in a small oratory
which had been fitted up for his wife. He now ordered the
doors to be thrown open, in order that all who came to pay
their duty to him might see the ceremony. When the host was
elevated there was a strange confusion in the antechamber. The
Roman Catholics fell on their knees: the Protestants hurried
out of the room. Soon a new pulpit was erected in the palace;
and, during Lent, a series of sermons was preached there by
Popish divines."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 4 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (May-July).
Monmouth's Rebellion.
"The Parliament which assembled on the 22nd of May ... was
almost entirely Tory. The failure of the Rye-House Plot had
produced a reaction, which for a time entirely annihilated the
Whig influence. ... The apparent triumph of the King and the
Tory party was completed by the disastrous failure of the
insurrection planned by their adversaries. A knot of exiled
malcontents, some Scotch, some English, had collected in
Holland. Among them was Monmouth and the Earl of Argyle, son
of that Marquis of Argyle who had taken so prominent a part on
the Presbyterian side in the Scotch troubles of Charles I.'s
reign. Monmouth had kept aloof from politics till, on the
accession of James, he was induced to join the exiles at
Amsterdam, whither Argyle, a strong Presbyterian, but a man of
lofty and moderate views, also repaired. National jealousy
prevented any union between the exiles, and two expeditions
were determined on,--the one under Argyle, who hoped to find
an army ready to his hand among his clansmen in the West of
Scotland, the other under Monmouth in the West of England.
Argyle's expedition set sail on the 2nd of May [1685]. ...
Argyle's invasion was ruined by the limited authority
intrusted to him, and by the jealousy and insubordination of
his fellow leaders. ... His army disbanded. He was himself
taken in Renfrewshire, and, after an exhibition of admirable
constancy, was beheaded. ... A week before the final
dispersion of Argyle's troops, Monmouth had landed in England
[at Lyme, June 11]. He was well received in the West. He had
not been twenty-four hours in England before he found himself
at the head of 1,500 men; but though popular among the common
people, he received no support from the upper classes. Even
the strongest Whigs disbelieved the story of his legitimacy,
and thought his attempt ill-timed and fraught with danger. ...
Meanwhile Monmouth had advanced to Taunton, had been there
received with enthusiasm, and, vainly thinking to attract the
nobility, had assumed the title of King. Nor was his reception
at Bridgewater less flattering. But difficulties already began
to gather round him; he was in such want of arms, that,
although rustic implements were converted into pikes, he was
still obliged to send away many volunteers; the militia were
closing in upon him in all directions; Bristol had been seized
by the Duke of Beaufort, and the regular army under Feversham
and Churchill were approaching." After feebly attempting
several movements, against Bristol and into Wiltshire,
Monmouth lost heart and fell back to Bridgewater. "The
Royalist army was close behind him, and on the fifth of July
encamped about three miles from Bridgewater, on the plain of
Sedgemoor." Monmouth was advised to undertake a night
surprise, and did so in the early morning of the 6th. "The
night was not unfitting for such an enterprise, for the mist
was so thick that at a few paces nothing could be seen. Three
great ditches by which the moor was drained lay between the
armies; of the third of these, strangely enough, Monmouth knew
nothing." The unexpected discovery of this third ditch, known
as "the Bussex Rhine," which his cavalry could not cross, and
behind which the enemy rallied, was the ruin of the
enterprise. "Monmouth saw that the day was lost, and with the
love of life which was one of the characteristics of his soft
nature, he turned and fled. Even after his flight the battle
was kept up bravely. At length the arrival of the King's
artillery put an end to any further struggle. The defeat was
followed by all the terrible scenes which mark a suppressed
insurrection. ... Monmouth and Grey pursued their flight into
the New Forest, and were there apprehended in the
neighbourhood of Ringwood." Monmouth petitioned abjectly for
his life, but in vain. He was executed on the 15th of July.
"The failure of this insurrection was followed by the most
terrible cruelties. Feversham returned to London, to be
flattered by the King and laughed at by the Court for his
military exploits. He left Colonel Kirke in command at
Bridgewater. This man had learned, as commander at Tangier,
all the worst arts of cruel despotism. His soldiery in bitter
pleasantry were called Kirke's 'Lambs,' from the emblem of
their regiment. It is impossible to say how many suffered at
the hands of this man and his brutal troops; 100 captives are
said by some to have been put to death the week after the
battle. But this military revenge did not satisfy the Court."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2, pages 764-768.
The number of Monmouth's men killed is computed by some at
2,000, by others at 300; a disparity, however, which may be
easily reconciled by supposing that the one account takes in
those who were killed in battle, while the other comprehends
the wretched fugitives who were massacred in ditches,
cornfields, and other hiding places, the following day."
C. J. Fox,
History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II.,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapters 13-28 (volumes 1-2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (September).
The Bloody Assizes.
"Early in September, Jeffreys [Sir George Jeffreys, Chief
Justice of the Court of King's Bench], accompanied by four
other judges, set out on that circuit of which the memory will
last as long as our race and language. ... At Winchester the
Chief Justice first opened his commission. Hampshire had not
been the theatre of war; but many of the vanquished rebels
had, like their leader, fled thither." Two among these had
been found concealed in the house of Lady Alice Lisle, a widow
of eminent nobility of character, and Jeffreys' first proceeding
was to arraign Lady Alice for the technical reason of the
concealment.
{905}
She was tried with extraordinary brutality of manner on the
part of the judge; the jury was bullied into a verdict of
guilty, and the innocent woman was condemned by the fiend on
the bench to be burned alive. By great exertion of many
people, the sentence was commuted from burning to beheading.
No mercy beyond this could be obtained from Jeffreys or his
fit master, the king. "In Hampshire Alice Lisle was the only
victim: but, on the day following her execution, Jeffreys
reached Dorchester, the principal town of the county in which
Monmouth had landed, and the judicial massacre began. The
court was hung, by order of the Chief Justice, with scarlet;
and this innovation seemed to the multitude to indicate a
bloody purpose. ... More than 300 prisoners were to be tried.
The work seemed heavy; but Jeffreys had a contrivance for
making it light. He let it be understood that the only chance
of obtaining pardon or respite was to plead guilty.
Twenty-nine persons, who put themselves on their country and
were convicted, were ordered to be tied up without delay. The
remaining prisoners pleaded guilty by scores. Two hundred and
ninety-two received sentence of death. The whole number hanged
in Dorsetshire amounted to seventy-four. From Dorchester
Jeffreys proceeded to Exeter. The civil war had barely grazed
the frontier of Devonshire. Here, therefore, comparatively few
persons were capitally punished. Somersetshire, the chief seat
of the rebellion, had been reserved for the last and most
fearful vengeance. In this county two hundred and thirty-three
prisoners were in a few days hanged, drawn and quartered. At
every spot where two roads met, on every market place, on the
green of every large village which had furnished Monmouth with
soldiers, ironed corpses clattering in the wind, or heads and
quarters stuck on poles, poisoned the air, and made the
traveller sick with horror. ... The Chief Justice was all
himself. His spirits rose higher and higher as the work went
on. He laughed, shouted, joked, and swore in such a way that
many thought him drunk from morning to night. ... Jeffreys
boasted that he had hanged more traitors than all his
predecessors together since the Conquest. ... Yet those rebels
who were doomed to death were less to be pitied than some of
the survivors. Several prisoners to whom Jeffreys was unable
to bring home the charge of high treason were convicted of
misdemeanours and were sentenced to scourging not less
terrible than that which Oates had undergone. ... The number
of prisoners whom Jeffreys transported was eight hundred and
forty-one. These men, more wretched than their associates who
suffered death, were distributed into gangs, and bestowed on
persons who enjoyed favour at court. The conditions of the
gift were that the convicts should be carried beyond sea as
slaves, that they should not be emancipated for ten years, and
that the place of their banishment should be some West Indian
island. ... It was estimated by Jeffreys that, on an average,
each of them, after all charges were paid, would be worth from
ten to fifteen pounds. There was therefore much angry
competition for grants. ... And now Jeffreys had done his
work, and returned to claim his reward. He arrived at Windsor
from the West, leaving carnage, mourning and terror behind
him. The hatred with which he was regarded by the people of
Somersetshire has no parallel in our history. ... But at the
court Jeffreys was cordially welcomed. He was a judge after
his master's own heart. James had watched the circuit with
interest and delight. ... At a later period, when all men of
all parties spoke with horror of the Bloody Assizes, the
wicked Judge and the wicked King attempted to vindicate
themselves by throwing the blame on each other."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
Sir James Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution
in England, chapter 1.
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
chapter 100 (volume 3).
G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapter 29-31 (volume 2).
See, also, TAUNTON: A. D. 1685.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1686.
Faithless and tyrannical measures against
the New England colonies.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687;
and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1689.
The Despotism of James II. in Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
The Court of High Commission revived.
"James conceived the design of employing his authority as head
of the Church of England as a means of subjecting that church
to his pleasure, if not of finally destroying it. It is hard
to conceive how he could reconcile to his religion the
exercise of supremacy in an heretical sect, and thus sanction
by his example the usurpations of the Tudors on the rights of
the Catholic Church. ... He, indeed, considered the
ecclesiastical supremacy as placed in his hands by Providence
to enable him to betray the Protestant establishment. 'God,'
said he to Barillon, 'has permitted that all the laws made to
establish Protestantism now serve as a foundation for my
measures to re-establish true religion, and give me a right to
exercise a more extensive power than other Catholic princes
possess in the ecclesiastical affairs of their dominions.' He
found legal advisers ready with paltry expedients for evading
the two statutes of 1641 and 1660 [abolishing, and
re-affirming the abolition of the Court of High Commission],
under the futile pretext that they forbade only a court vested
with such powers of corporal punishment as had been exercised
by the old Court of High Commission; and in conformity to
their pernicious counsel, he issued, in July, a commission to
certain ministers, prelates, and judges, to act as a Court of
Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes. The first purpose of
this court was to enforce directions to preachers, issued by
the King, enjoining them to abstain from preaching on
controverted questions."
Sir James Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution in England,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 5, chapter 3.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
The consolidation of New England under a royal
Governor-General.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1687.
Riddance of the Test Act by royal dispensing power.
"The abolition of the tests was a thing resolved upon in the
catholic council, and for this a sanction of some kind or
other was required, as they dared not yet proceed upon the
royal will alone. Chance, or the machinations of the
catholics, created an affair which brought the question of the
tests under another form before the court of king's bench.
{906}
This court had not the power to abolish the Test Act, but it
might consider whether the king had the right of exempting
particular subjects from the formalities. ... The king ...
closeted himself with the judges one by one, dismissed some,
and got those who replaced them, 'ignorant men,' says an
historian, 'and scandalously incompetent,' to acknowledge his
dispensing power. ... The judges of the king's bench, after a
trial, ... declared, almost in the very language used by the
crown counsel:
1. That the kings of England are sovereign princes;
2. That the laws of England are the king's laws;
3. That therefore it is an inseparable prerogative in the
kings of England to dispense with penal laws in particular
cases, and upon particular necessary reasons;
4. That of those reasons, and those necessities, the king
himself is sole judge; and finally, which is consequent
upon all,
5. That this is not a trust invested in, or granted to the
king by the people, but the ancient remains of the
sovereign power and prerogative of the kings of England,
which never yet was taken from them, nor can be.
The case thus decided, the king thought he might rely upon the
respect always felt by the English people for the decisions of
the higher courts, to exempt all his catholic subjects from
the obligations of the test. And upon this, it became no
longer a question merely of preserving in their commissions
and offices those whose dismissal had been demanded by
parliament. ... To obtain or to retain certain employments, it
was necessary to be of the same religion with the king.
Papists replaced in the army and in the administration all
those who had pronounced at all energetically for the
maintenance of the tests. Abjurations, somewhat out of credit
during the last session of parliament, again resumed favour."
A. Carrel,
History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 4, chapter 4.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.
Declarations of Indulgence.
Trial of the Seven Bishops.
"Under pretence of toleration for Dissenters, James
endeavoured, under another form, to remove obstacles from
Romanists. He announced an Indulgence. He began in Scotland by
issuing on the 12th of February, 1687, in Edinburgh, a
Proclamation granting relief to scrupulous consciences. Hereby
he professed to relieve the Presbyterians, but the relief of
them amounted to nothing; to the Romanists it was complete.
... On the 18th of March, 1687, he announced to the English
Privy Council his intention to prorogue Parliament, and to
grant upon his own authority entire liberty of conscience to
all his subjects. Accordingly on the 4th of April he published
his Indulgence, declaring his desire to see all his subjects
become members of the Church of Rome, and his resolution
(since that was impracticable) to protect them in the free
exercise of their religion; also promising to protect the
Established Church: then he annulled a number of Acts of
Parliament, suspended all penal laws against Nonconformists,
authorised Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters to
perform worship publicly, and abrogated all Acts of Parliament
imposing any religious test for civil or military offices.
This declaration was then notoriously illegal and
unconstitutional. James now issued a second and third
declaration for Scotland, and courted the Dissenters in
England, but with small encouragement. ... On the 27th of
April, 1688, James issued a second Declaration of Indulgence
for England. ... On the 4th of May, by an order in Council, he
directed his Declaration of the 27th of April to be publicly
read during divine service in all Churches and Chapels, by the
officiating ministers, on two successive Sundays--namely, on
the 20th and 27th of May in London, and on the 3d and 10th of
June in the country; and desired the Bishops to circulate this
Declaration through their dioceses. Hitherto the Bishops and
Clergy had held the doctrine of passive obedience to the
sovereign, however bad in character or in his measures--now
they were placed by the King himself in a dilemma. Here was a
violation of existing law, and an intentional injury to their
Church, if not a plan for the substitution of another. The
Nonconformists, whom James pretended to serve, coincided with
and supported the Church. A decided course must be taken. The
London Clergy met and resolved not to read the Declaration. On
the 12th of May, at Lambeth Palace, the Archbishop of
Canterbury and other Prelates assembled. They resolved that
the Declaration ought not to be read. On Friday, the 18th of
May, a second meeting of the Prelates and eminent divines was
held at Lambeth Palace. A petition to the King was drawn up by
the Archbishop of Canterbury in his own handwriting,
disclaiming all disloyalty and all intolerance, ... but
stating that Parliament had decided that the King could not
dispense with Statutes in matters ecclesiastical--that the
Declaration was therefore illegal--and could not be solemnly
published by the petitioners in the House of God and during
divine service. This paper was signed by Sancroft, Archbishop
of Canterbury, Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph, Turner of Ely, Lake
of Chichester, Ken of Bath and Wells, White of Peterborough,
and Trelawny of Bristol. It was approved by Compton, Bishop of
London, but not signed, because he was under suspension. The
Archbishop had long been forbidden to appear at Court,
therefore could not present it. On Friday evening the six
Bishops who had signed were introduced by Sunderland to the
King, who read the document and pronounced it libellous [and
seditious and rebellious], and the Bishops retired. On Sunday,
the 20th of May, the first day appointed, the Declaration was
read in London only in four Churches out of one hundred. The
Dissenters and Church Laymen sided with the Clergy. On the
following Sunday the Declaration was treated in the same
manner in London, and on Sunday, the 3d of June, was
disregarded by Bishops and Clergy in all parts of England.
James, by the advice of Jeffreys, ordered the Archbishop and
Bishops to be indicted for a seditious libel. They were, on
the 8th of June, conveyed to the Tower amidst the most
enthusiastic demonstrations of respect and affection from all
classes. The same night the Queen was said to have given birth
to a son; but the national opinion was that some trick had
been played. On the 29th of June the trial of the seven
Bishops came on before the Court of King's Bench. ... The
Jury, who, after remaining together all night (one being
stubborn) pronounced a verdict of not guilty on the morning of
the 30th June, 1688."
W. H. Torriano,
William the Third,
chapter 2.
{907}
"The court met at nine o'clock. The nobility and gentry
covered the benches, and an immense concourse of people filled
the Hall, and blocked up the adjoining streets. Sir Robert
Langley, the foreman of the jury, being, according to
established form, asked whether the accused were guilty or not
guilty, pronounced the verdict 'Not guilty.' No sooner were
these words uttered than a loud huzza arose from the audience
in the court. It was instantly echoed from without by a shout
of joy, which sounded like a crack of the ancient and massy
roof of Westminster Hall. It passed with electrical rapidity
from voice to voice along the infinite multitude who waited in
the streets. It reached the Temple in a few minutes. ... 'The
acclamations,' says Sir John Reresby, 'were a very rebellion
in noise.' In no long time they ran to the camp at Hounslow,
and were repeated with an ominous voice by the soldiers in the
hearing of the King, who, on being told that they were for the
acquittal of the bishops, said, with an ambiguity probably
arising from confusion, 'So much the worse for them.'"
Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution in England in 1688,
chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
A. Strickland,
Lives of the Seven Bishops.
R. Southey,
Book of the Church,
chapter 18.
G. G. Perry,
History of the Church of England,
chapter 30 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (July).
William and Mary of Orange the hope of the nation.
"The wiser among English statesmen had fixed their hopes
steadily on the succession of Mary, the elder daughter and
heiress of James. The tyranny of her father's reign made this
succession the hope of the people at large. But to Europe the
importance of the change, whenever it should come about, lay
not so much in the succession of Mary as in the new power
which such an event would give to her husband, William, Prince
of Orange. We have come, in fact, to a moment when the
struggle of England against the aggression of its King blends
with the larger struggle of Europe against the aggression of