Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

council was to the same effect; for various limitations on a Popish successor having been proposed, some heads to be offered to the consideration of Parliament were at length resolved upon, and obtained the consent of all but Lord Shaftesbury and Sir William Temple. The first declared openly, that no security was to be found but in the total exclusion of the Duke of York, who, by force of arms, might break through all the limitations proposed; whilst the latter feared they would leave him in shackles, which would not be easily broken through by any successor. Temple, indeed, was secretly of opinion, that no expedient proposed by the crown would be agreed to by the Commons. This was also the private opinion of the King, who, even at the moment of proposing the limitations, was fully determined never to consent to them. * He came to the House of Peers on the 30th, and, after a short speech, left the matter April 30. to be fully explained by the chancellor. The chief articles he proposed were as follows. That care should be taken, that all ecclesiastical benefices and promotions in the gift of the crown, should be conferred on the most learned Protestants: That no members of the privy council, no judges of the common law, or in chancery, should, during the reign of a Popish successor, be put in or displaced, but by authority of Parliament: That no lord lieutenant, or deputy lieutenant, nor any officer in the navy, should be put out or removed, but either by Parliament, or by such persons as the Parliament should entrust with authority for that purpose.

On the 11th May this great affair came into discussion May 11. in the House of Commons. The debate was opened by Mr. Bennet, who moved to make an address to the King, that the Duke might not come to England again without the consent of the King and the two Houses of Parliament. Mr. Pilkington "would humbly 66 pray the King that the Duke might come over, that they might impeach him of high treason." Secretary Coventry and Lord Cavendish supported the limitations. Mr. Hampden and Mr. Boscawen spoke

66

* At least he wrote to this effect to the Prince of Orange, who does not however seem to have given full credit to the King's assurances. Dal. App. 302. 307.

for the exclusion.

After farther debate it was resolved, May 15. "That a bill be brought in to disable the Duke of York to "inherit the imperial crown of this realm." On the next day, in utter defiance of justice and reason, it was resolved, nem. con. "That in "defence of the King's person and the Protestant religion, this "House doth declare that they will stand by His Majesty with their "lives and fortunes; and that if His Majesty shall come by any vio"lent death, (which God forbid!) that they will revenge it to the "utmost upon the Papists."

The important bill which was now brought in enacted, First, That the said James, Duke of York, should be incapable of inheriting the crowns of England, Scotland, and Ireland, with their dependencies, and of enjoying any of the titles, rights, prerogatives, and revenues belonging to the said crowns. Secondly, That in case His Majesty should happen to die or resign his dominions, they should devolve to the person next in succession, in the same manner as if the Duke was dead. Thirdly, That all acts of sovereignty and royalty that Prince might then happen to perform, were not only declared void, but to be high treason, and punishable as such. Fourthly, That if any one, at any time whatsoever, should endeavour to bring the said Duke into any of the fore-mentioned dominions, or correspond with him in order to make him inherit, he should be guilty of high treason. Fifthly, That if the Duke himself ever returned into any of these dominions, considering the mischief that must ensue, he should be looked upon as guilty of the same offence; and all persons were authorised and required to seize upon and imprison him; and, in case of resistance made by him or his adherents, to subdue them by force of arms. It was read a second time on the 21st, the division being, yeas 207, noes 128.

Lord Shaftesbury lost no opportunity of forwarding the Bill of Exclusion. He represented to the honest, that they never could be safe under a Popish successor; and he hinted to the interested, that the Duke of Monmouth was in such favour at Whitehall, that the King only desired a fair occasion of yielding to the wishes of the Parliament. His credit grew so high with the Parliament, that Sunder

land, Essex, and Halifax desired to admit him and Monmouth to the private or cabinet council; upon which Temple left them. But the three lords, finding that Monmouth and Shaftesbury would be satisfied with nothing less than yielding all points to the House of Commons, broke off with them, and concerted with Temple a prorogation of Parliament. They reckoned to carry this measure in the council by the votes of the fifteen placemen, and such of the others who should join them against Shaftesbury and his party. But even this mockery of advice was afterwards said to be unsafe, upon the pretence that the King had discovered that new remonstrances were preparing upon the subjects of the plot and Popery. He therefore went May 27. down to the Lords and suddenly prorogued the Parliament. "It passed," says Temple, "with very great resentment of both Houses, and such rage on the part of Lord Shaftesbury, that he said aloud in the House, that he would have the heads of those who were the authors of the prorogation." Indeed the King could hardly have contrived a measure that should so completely belie his public declaration on forming his council. "By the constant advice of such a "council, His Majesty is resolved hereafter to govern his kingdoms, together with the frequent use of his great council of Parliament, "which he takes to be the true ancient constitution of this state and government."

66

66

At the time of the prorogation, the House of Commons were occupied in examining into the pensions of members of the former parliament. It appeared by the report of the committee of secrecy, that 20,000l. per annum were paid quarterly by the commissioners of excise, for secret service to members of parliament. About thirty members who received pensions were named by Sir Stephen Fox; but the house had only time to examine two or three before the dissolution. Several, it appeared, had received the money as a compensation for giving up a share in the farm of the excise.

On the same day that Parliament was prorogued, the King gave his assent to the Habeas Corpus Act. From the passing of Magna Charta to that of the act of Habeas Corpus, a period of more than four centuries and a half, many attempts had been made, without

success, to ensure the execution of that blessed clause, by which it is enacted, that no freeman should be imprisoned or punished, except by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. The provisions of the present act of Habeas Corpus, which are too well known to require enumeration here, are, I believe, the same as those of the bill introduced in 1675, and are so admirably adapted to secure the personal liberty of the subject, as to mèrit the praise of all historians. The censure of James the Second, conveyed in the following passage, is however, superior in value to any panegyric. In his advice to his son, he says, "It was a great misfortune to the people, as well as to the crown, the passing of the Habeas Corpus Act; since it obliges the crown to keep a greater force on foot, than it needed otherwise to preserve the government, and encourages disaffected, turbulent, and unquiet spirits, to contrive and carry on with more security to themselves, their wicked designs; it was contrived and carried on by the Earl of Shaftesbury to that intent." * The part here attributed to Lord Shaftesbury, in framing this law, instead of being disgraceful, does great credit to his sagacity, and entitles him to the gratitude of the people of England. The whigs in the council, though few in number, may have likewise assisted in obtaining the King's consent to the act. Even the act now passed however, excellent as it is, was not scrupulously observed till after the Revolution. The peculiar distinction of that great event is not, as some suppose, to have established the right of Parliament to depose the King, and alter the succession of the crown, a principle often before asserted in the course of our history, but to have brought into easy and undisturbed practice those ancient rights and liberties, which the Plantagenets had attempted in vain to subvert, which the Tudors had often been allowed to trample upon, and which the Stuarts sacrificed their throne to destroy.

• Life of James, b. ii. p. 621.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

---

DISGRACE OF MONMOUTH AND SHAFTESBURY. — PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT. — MEAL-TUB PLOT. RETIREMENT OF ESSEX AND HALIFAX. THEIR CHARACTERS. PETITIONS FOR THE MEETING OF PARLIAMENT. CHARACTER OF THE PARTIES SO CALLED.

AND TORIES.

[ocr errors]

ABHORRING ADDRESSES.

WHIGS

June 2.

In the spring of the year 1679, the insurrection which is May 29. known by the name of the rising of Bothwell Bridge, broke out in Scotland. In the first encounter with the insurgents, which happened at Loudon Hill, Captain Graham, afterwards celebrated as Viscount Dundee, was defeated. When this news was communicated to the council, Lord Russell stood up and began a speech, saying, "he was so far from wondering that this trouble happened now, that he rather wondered it did not happen long ago, since His Majesty thought fit to retain incendiaries near his person, and in his very council." council." Upon which the Duke of Lauderdale, seeing that he was aimed at, and recollecting the parliamentary addresses against him, asked leave to withdraw. But the King replied, with a motion of his hand, No, no, sit down, my Lord; this is no place for addresses.” *

66

North, who relates this saying, does not hesitate to accuse Lord Shaftesbury and the Whigs of exciting the rebellion, which was the subject of debate. As the only authority he alleges in support of this position, is a rumour in an anonymous pamphlet, that forty copies of a speech of Lord Shaftesbury's had been sent to Scotland, it may seem unnecessary to refute so groundless a charge. But as it has been credited by the impartial Ralph, and as the affairs of Scot

*North Ex. p. 79.

« ПредишнаНапред »