the other hand, the grand jury consisted entirely of Lord Shaftesbury's friends. They made a return of ignoramus upon the bill, and hence the term Ignoramus Jury became a bye-word against the whigs.

The Court was convinced, by the result of this enquiry, that the strength of the opposition in the city would be a troublesome obstacle to the execution of their designs. At this point, therefore, they determined to make the first attack on the liberties of England. Saunders, a learned but profligate lawyer, proposed to seize the charter of London by a process of quo warranto. The decision, in this case, rests with the judges, whose appointment was during the pleasure of the Crown. Saunders himself was made chief-justice, for the purpose, and Dolben gave place to Withers. It was thought that the charter of the metropolis, once in the hands of the Crown, other cities and towns might easily be induced to make a surrender of theirs, which were only to be returned to them with the condition that the King should appoint the mayor, and officers of corporations. Thus a parliament might be produced entirely subservient to the Crown; and the sanction of Parliament, for an independent revenue, once obtained, it would have been easy to lay aside the use of parliaments altogether. In the meantime a new alli

ance had been concluded with France, which relieved the King from any immediate necessity. for money.

At this period, indeed, Charles and Lewis seem to have come to a more perfect understanding than they had ever done before. We have frequently seen, in the course of this work, that Charles applied to Lewis for money, in order that he might not receive the law from hissubjects," or "any longer depend on the caprice of the House of Commons." But these supplies were not always so abundant as he could wish, and as he often found it necessary to assemble Parliament, he made a skilful use of their violence against France, to frighten Lewis into larger and more certain pensions. Lewis, on the other hand, was more sparing than we should have expected in his subsidies: he seems to have been afraid of trusting Charles with unlimited authority in his dominions, lest he should prove ungrateful, and the encouragement given by France to the Opposition in Parliament, shows his policy to have been to keep the King always weak, and dependent on himself. But at this time he appears to have been disposed to make Charles independent of his people. In February 1681, Barillon wrote to his master, "There remains only one difficulty, which is that of putting off for ever the sittings of Parlia

ment. I know very well it is a security your Majesty has reason to demand, but you promised me in 1679 to consent that the Parliament should assemble, when the King of England should think it necessary for his own interests, provided the subsidies should then cease." Charles was now fully able to take advantage of this favourable disposition. On the 24th of March 1681, he agreed to make a private con, vention with France. Mr. Hume found the substance of this convention, with the date of the 1st of April, in the depôt at Versailles.t The terms are, that Charles should disengage himself from the Spanish alliance; that he should prevent parliaments from counteracting his engagement; and that he should receive two millions of livres for one year, and 500,000 crowns for two more years. Barillon wished very much that this convention should be signed by the two princes, but they would only consent to make it a verbal agreement. The reason for his urging it, and for the refusal of Charles, is thus given by Barillon. "It also appears to me, that this prince would not dare to make a treaty public, in which he has engaged himself not to assemble Parliament; it would be very dangerous to his person, and entirely contrary to the laws of

* Dal. App. 301.

+ Hume, vol. viii. p. 207.

England." Let us consider for a moment the value of these words. Ten years before, we found Charles entering into secret engagements, contrary to his oath, and subversive of all his duties to his subjects. We find him now, after various changes of fortune, beginning, as it were, a fresh career of imposture, degradation, and treachery, in order to destroy the constitution over which he had been called to preside, and to extinguish the laws which he was bound to administer.

Some of the chief obstacles to this plan, after the Whig leaders, might be expected to come from the Dissenters. In the language of a pamphlet of the day, "the strength of the Dissenters is the weakness of the Crown." In order to diminish this strength, the Act of the 35th of Elizabeth was put strictly in force. Dissenting ministers were prosecuted in all parts of the country, and obliged to pay heavy fines for the discharge of their duty. The jails were filled with those who were unable to pay these fines, and it is said, that in Uxbridge alone, two hundred warrants for distress were issued.*

At the same time the Whig newspapers, which were very active in bringing to light acts of oppression and injustice, were suppressed, and

* Oldmixon.

the writers of them imprisoned. Great pains were taken, on the other hand, to direct the public mind into the road of abject servility. Roger L'Estrange set up a paper, called the Observator, which served as a vehicle for the most outrageous libels on the principles and persons of the Opposition. Amongst other passages of a similar kind, he said that a citizen's skull was but a thing to try the temper of a soldier's sword upon.

Every exertion was made to procure from the country addresses abhorring the association found amongst Lord Shaftesbury's papers, and stigmatising the ignoramus juries. Those who promoted these addresses, which were obtained from the indifference rather than the zeal of the people, were the adherents of the Court, and the members of the church. The universities also were unanimous in giving their sanction to doctrines calculated to obtain the favour of royalty, and rivet the chains of the multitude. The Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, in addressing the King, told him that he reigned "by a fundamental, hereditary right of succession, which no religion, no law, no fault, can alter or diminish." The celebrated decree of the Uni versity of Oxford, condemning resistance, and inculcating passive obedience, was not passed till some time afterwards. But these declara