Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

which he had brought it forward. Warrants were issued for his apprehension, and he was obliged to remain in concealment for some years.* Clarendon's enemies were completely disheartened and confounded by this failure, and he seemed again firmly seated in power; but although the King still yielded to him the chief direction of affairs, the former friendship between them was never restored, and Charles watched impatiently for a favourable opportunity entirely to emancipate himself from his minister.†

(

CHAPTER LXXXI.

CONTINUATION OF THE LIFE OF LORD CLARENDON TILL HIS FALL.

CLARENDON was prevented by illness from being present at the opening of the session of parliament, which began in March, [A. D. 1664.] 1664, but he prompted Charles's address to the two Houses delivered on that occasion. The doctrine was not yet recognised that the King's speech is the speech of the minister, or he would have been liable to very severe censure for the language now uttered. The House of Commons having sat three years, objections were started that under the triennial act, to which Charles I. had assented, it had legally ceased to exist. "I confess to you, my lords and gentlemen," said the King, "I have often myself read over that bill, and though there is no colour for the fancy of the determination of this parliament, yet I will not deny to you that I have always expected that you would, and even wondered that you have not, considered the wonderful clauses in that bill, which passed in a time very uncareful for the dignity of the Crown or the security of the people. I need not tell you how much I love parliaments. Never King was so much beholden to parliaments as I have been; nor do I think the Crown can ever be happy without frequent parliaments. But assure yourselves, if I should think otherwise, I would never suffer a parliament to come together by the means prescribed by that bill."

"So audacious a declaration, equivalent to an avowed design in certain circumstances of preventing the execution of the laws by force of arms, was never before heard from the lips of an English King, and would in any other times have awakened a storm of indignation from the Commons." But a repealing act rapidly passed both Houses, providing merely that parliaments should not be intermitted more than

* 4 Parl. Hist. 276.

† Life, ii. 256. Burnet, i. 358.

‡ Hall. Const. Hist. ii. 448. It has been suggested that the speech meant no more than that the King would take care, by the frequent calling of parliaments, that the compulsory clauses of the triennial act should never come into operation; but I think the plain meaning is, that he would set them at defiance.—See Lister's Life of Clarendon, ii. 289.

three years, but furnishing no remedy for the enforcement of the rule,a provision which was found nugatory in the course of this very reign. Clarendon's ecclesiastical policy has excited so much attention, that he has escaped the blame he deserves for having been instrumental in removing this constitutional barrier, whereby he hurried on the destruction of the family whose power he wished to extend.

He now gained immense applause from the ultra-high-church party, by passing the " Conventicle Act," the object of which

was wholly to prevent the public celebration of religious [MAY, 1664.] worship, except according to the ceremonies of the Church of England, -by enacting that every meeting of more than five persons, in addition to the members of the family, for religious purposes, not in accordance with the established Liturgy, should be held to be a seditious and unlawful conventicle, and that any person above sixteen years of age, on conviction before a single justice, might be punished by a fine of 51. or imprisonment during three months for the first offence, 107. or six months for the second offence, and 1007. or transportation for the third offence.

This was followed up a few months after with the "Five Mile Act," which completed the "Clarendonian Code," enacting that [A. D. 1665.] all nonconforming clergymen should take an oath that it was not lawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the King or against those commissioned by him, and that they would not at any time endeavour any alteration of government in Church or State, and that whoever would not take this oath should be rendered incapable of teaching in schools, and should be forbidden under pain of fine and imprisonment to abide within five miles of any city corporate or borough town sending members to parliament, or any place where he had exercised his ministry. This outrageous bill, though brought in by the ministry, was opposed by Southampton, the Lord Treasurer, who declared he could take no such oath himself; for how firm soever he had always been to the Church, yet as things were managed he did not know but he himself might see cause to endeavour an alteration ;* but Clarendon rebukes his friend for too great indulgence to the Presbyterians, and praises the parliament which passed this act "for entirely sympathizing with his Majesty, and having passed more acts for his honour and security than any other had ever done in so short a session." No one can doubt his sincerity or his disinterestedness, for he was not only making himself obnoxious both to the dissenters and the Roman Catholics, but he was likewise fully aware that the line of policy he pursued on these questions was highly distasteful to the King, who was for liberty of conscience and of worship, for the sake of the religion he had embraced. We can only deeply regret the Chancellor's growing bigotry, and his utter forgetfulness of the solemn engagements into which he had entered. But this part of his conduct may endear his memory to many; for we have seen his principles † Life, iii. 1.

* Burnet, i. 390.

professed and acted upon with great applause by distinguished and honourable men of our own time, after a long experience of the blessings of toleration, to which he was a stranger.

The Dutch war was now undertaken, from commercial jealousy on the part of the English nation, and from the King's hope of diverting to private purposes a part of the supplies voted by parliament for carrying it on. To the honour of Clarendon, he, with his friend Southampton, steadily opposed it as unjust and impolitic. According to the maxims which then prevailed, he considered himself authorized, however, in remaining in office and publicly defending the policy of the Government which he privately condemned. Being still unable to [Nov. 1664.] attend in person at the opening of a new session in November, he prepared "a Narrative of the late Passages between his Majesty and the Dutch, and his Majesty's Preparations thereupon," which, after his own speech, the King handed in, and which was read in his presence. This was in the nature of a manifesto to justify hostilities, and concluded with an earnest exhortation to the two Houses to enable the King, by liberal supplies, to prosecute the war with vigour, and so to obtain an honourable peace. Conferences were held at Worcester House with the leading members of the House of Commons as to the most expedient mode of conducting the business of the government in that assembly, where motions of supply were still made by independent members, and the ostensible office of Government leader was unknown.

Charles himself used occasionally to attend these meetings. Clarendon has left us a curious account of one of them held in his own bed-chamber when he was confined by the gout, the question being, "Whether the Government should agree to a proposal, strongly supported in the House of Commons, that the money voted should be appropriated to particular services, instead of forming a general fund to be applied at the pleasure of the Crown?" Sir George Downing ventured to express an opinion in favour of this course,-which threw the old Chancellor into a great rage, and,―joined to "the extremity of the pain which at that time he endured in his bed,"-drew from him this reprimand," that it was impossible for the King to be well served whilst fellows of his condition were admitted to speak as much as they had a mind to, and that in the best times such presumption had been punished with imprisonment by the Lords of the Council." But the King was not pleased to see a leading member of the House of Commons so put down, and took his side,-probably from the fear that, without the appropriation, the supply would not be granted, and hoping when he had once got the money to divert it to his own purposes.

The next motion in the House of Commons alarmed the Chancellor much more, being for the appointment of Commissioners to superintend the expenditure of the poll tax and other taxes. This was carried by a majority of 119 to 83, though according to Pepys, " it was mightily ill taken by all the Court party, as a mortal blow that struck deep into

the King's prerogative, and though when the division was expected the King had given order to my Lord Chamberlain to send to the playhouses and brothels to bid all the parliament-men that were there to go to the parliament presently."*

It seems very strange to us that Clarendon should advise the King to resist the inquiry into the public expenditure-which he considered as bad as any thing attempted by the Long Parliament, saying "that this was such a new encroachment as had no bottom; and that the scars were yet too fresh and green of those wounds, which had been inflicted upon the kingdom from such usurpation: and therefore he desired his Majesty to be firm in the resolution he had taken, and not to depart from it."+

He

Charles pretended to follow his advice by appointing Lord Ashley treasurer of prize-money, with a provision "that he should account for all moneys received by him to the King himself, and to no other person whatsoever." Clarendon remonstrated, arguing that such a patent was unprecedented; that it would cause the King to be defrauded; and that it was an offensive encroachment on the office of Lord Treasurer. might have added, that it was an expedient to facilitate the peculation meditated by his Majesty. Charles here was "firm in the resolution he had taken, and would not depart from it, for the King sent the Chancellor a positive order to seal the commission, which he could no longer refuse."+

In the next controversy in which Clarendon was engaged he gained great distinction with the judicious, although he was de- [A. D. 1666.]

nounced by the landed interest as "a friend of free trade."

The importation of cattle from Ireland had lately considerably increased. The landlords, headed by the Duke of Buckingham, instead of pretending to stand up as the advocates of the tenant-farmers, or of the labourers, or of the public, plainly spoke out, "that, from a fall in the price of cattle, their rents were lowered to the amount of 200,000l. a-year, which they could not afford." A bill was therefore brought in absolutely to prohibit such importation in future; and this was followed by another bill, equally to prohibit the importation of any cured meat or provisions from Ireland, which (according to the notions of law then prevailing) that the King might not afterwards be able to permit it by his dispensing power, was declared to be "nuisance." These bills passed the Commons by great majorities, and when they came to the Lords, the Duke of Buckingham declared that "they could not be opposed by any who had not Irish estates or Irish understandings."§ The Chancellor, however, had the courage to deliver a most admirable * Pepys, iii. 102, 103.

+ Life, iii. 132.

Life of Clarendon, ii. 340. We have here another instance of the notion then prevailing that any act was excused by the personal order of the Sovereign. The correlative maxims of royal impeccability and ministerial responsibility were yet imperfectly understood. Resignation instead of compliance was never thought of. -See Life of Lord Keeper Herbert, ante, p. 103.

Ossory, the son of the Lord Lieutenant, in consequence sent him a challenge, but they were both taken into the custody of the Black Rod.

speech against them, pointing out the injustice of these measures to our fellow-subjects in Ireland, and the impolicy of them with a view to English manufactures, the demand for which from Ireland must cease,— and even to English agriculture, which could not fail to prosper with the increased prosperity produced by a free interchange of commodities between the two islands. He was told, however, that the heavily-taxed English could not enter into competition in the breeding of cattle with the lightly-taxed Irish, and that without the proposed "protection" tenants would be bankrupt, labourers must come upon the parish, and the kingdom must be ruined. He was shamefully beaten in all the divisions on the bill, and all that he could effect was, in the Committee, to carry an amendment, by 63 to 47, to strike out the word "nuisance," and to insert "detriment and mischief" in its stead. The Chancellor's amendment set the Commons in a flame, and many sarcasms were uttered upom the presumption of a lawyer, who had hardly inherited an acre from his father, either in Ireland or England, pretending to speak upon such a subject. Several conferences took place between the two Houses, the King for some time, at the request of the Duke of Ormond, supporting the Chancellor; but the Squires declared that they had not yet completed the supplies, and that they would stop them at all hazards if they were to be thus dictated to by wild theorists, who had no practical knowledge of the breeding of cattle, or of the true interests of the country. Charles became alarmed lest no more money should be granted to carry on the war and to satisfy the rapacity of his mistresses; the friends of the Court in the House of Lords were instructed to agree to the contested word, and the bill received the royal assent with the clause declaring that the importation of Irish provisions was "to the common nuisance of all his Majesty's subjects residing in England."* happened in the "annus mirabilis," and was of more permanent injury to the country than the Plague or the Fire of London.

This

I have no doubt that the part which Clarendon took on the Irish question contributed to his fall quite as much as the unfortunate termination of the Dutch war, to which it has been generally ascribed.

For the conduct of that war he was not answerable more than for its commencement. He strove to get the votes of both Houses in its favour, and supplies from the Commons for carrying it on, but these were handed over to Charles's profligate companions, and shamefully misapplied. The consequence was, that while the negotiations for a peace were going forward,-by the energy of De Witt, the Dutch fleet, under the command of De Ruyter, took Sheerness, burnt the dock-yard at Chatham, sunk several English ships of war in the Thames, sailed up the river as high as Gravesend, were expected next tide at London Bridge, and after blockading the port of London, and insulting the English coast on the German Ocean and on the Channel for some weeks, withdrew at their leisure to their own harbours. The peace of Breda soon removed the apprehension of

[JULY 10, 1667.]

* Lords' Journ. Dec. 20, 29, 1666. Jan. 3, 12, 14, 1677.

« ПредишнаНапред »