Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

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 merit 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

* Life of James, b. ii. p. 621.

"

1

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.

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

PLOT.

[ocr errors]

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

MEAL-TUB

RETIREMENT OF ESSEX AND HALIFAX. THEIR CHARACTERS. PETITIONS FOR THE MEETING OF PARLIAMENT. ABHORRING ADDRESSES.

WHIGS AND

TORIES.- CHARACTER OF THE PARTIES SO CALLED.

May 29.

In the spring of the year 1679, the insurrection which is 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 Vis

June 2.

[merged small][ocr errors]

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." Upon which the Duke of Lauderdale, seeing that he was aimed at, and recollecting the parliamentary

[ocr errors]

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.” *

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 Scotland may afford a specimen of the temper of the government in general, it is by no means superfluous to enquire into the real causes of the Scotch insurrection.

At the time of the Restoration, it became a question at court, whether prelacy should be reestablished in Scotland. Lauderdale, whose sufferings, abilities, and knowledge of his countrymen, gave weight to his opinion, advised, that the presbyterian form of church government should be continued, as more congenial to the religious opinions of the nation. But Clarendon and Middleton advised the restoration of prelacy,

*North Ex. p. 79.

in conformity to their own prejudices and the policy of the King's father. Unhappily their counsel prevailed. Middleton, who was sent

down as King's commissioner, obtained from an obsequious parliament, not only the measures which had been proposed at court, but an act annulling the four parliaments which had sate since the year 1633. The bishops, too, were restored, not as they had been during the reign of Charles the First, subject to the controul of a presbytery and synod, but invested with supreme and exclusive jurisdiction in ecclesiastical affairs. All ministers who refused or neglected to secure induction from a bishop were displaced. Three hundred and fifty clergymen were in this manner ejected from their livings. But the people, sincerely attached to the presbyterian worship, followed their pastors, and as they had not houses large enough to hold their congregations, conventicles were held in the open fields. The lukewarm and irregular behaviour of the new clergy tended to promote the secession of their flocks. Upon this proof

1663.

of the determined spirit of the people, the severities of the government were increased. By an order of the privy council, the ejected clergy were forbidden to approach within twenty miles of their former parishes; declared seditious if they attempted to preach; and all those

« ПредишнаНапред »