speech in its support Clarendon says:, this office Sir George Downing introduced The Lord Ashley adhered firmly to his a proviso into the Supply Bill of 1665, point, spake often and with great sharp- limiting the appropriation of a war grant ness of wit, and had a cadence in his words exclusively to expenses of the war. This and pronunciation that drew attention." suggestion was carried, and became the This advocacy of the dispensing power foundation of modern Appropriation Bills. won for Ashley the favour of the King, who How necessary such a proviso was became was naturally inclined to toleration, and, evident in the following year, when the moreover, thought it a matter of honour to Commons examined the public accounts adhere to his Declaration from Breda. and discovered how much of the money 'Strange to hear," says old Pepys, "how voted for the war had been wasted on my Lord Ashley . . . . is got into favour other objects. But when it was first inso much that, being a man of great busi- troduced it offended none so much as Lord ness and yet of pleasure and drolling too, Clarendon, who was Lord Chancellor, and he, it is thought, will be made Treasurer Lord Ashley, who was Chancellor of the on the death or removal of the good old King's Exchequer and Treasurer of the man." The Count de Comminges about King's Prizes. Clarendon denounced the this time writes:clause because it encroached on the royal prerogative. Ashley disliked it because he was a financial official at the time, and the clause transferred the disposal of public money from official decision to the domain of statute law. But the King's friends went beyond the King himself. Charles wanted money, and he wanted it with the least possible trouble and delay. He saw that opposition to this clause might make future grants difficult and reluctant. So he bade his friends withhold their opposition, which they did, and then the Bill passed the Lords as it had passed

"Lord Ashley, Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was formerly of Cromwell's Council, and who in my opinion is the only man who can be set against Clarendon for talent and firmness, does not shrink from speaking his opinions of Clarendon with freedom, and contradicting him to his face. He has gone so far that he has made the King perceive that Clarendon's alliance with the Duke of York was very prejudicial to him, and as he is very acute and a very good courtier, and is perfectly well in the King's graces, it is suspected with sufficient probability that Lord Bristol and Secretary Bennet and

Morrice and all the rest of that clique may well give trouble to the Chancellor, and place him in a disagreeable position."

Both courtiers and foreigners perceived that Clarendon's influence was beginning to wane. And some of them were shrewd enough to see that Ashley's was on the

rise.

the Commons.

Although Ashley had sided with Clarendon in his zeal for the prerogative, he did not side with him in his propensity to persecution. He strongly opposed the intolerance of the Five Mile Act and the Bill for imposing oaths of absolute obedience. Considering that the plague was at that

Pepys writes, June 6, 1663: "Sir John Heb-time ravaging the capital, and that the den, the Russia Resident, did tell me how he is vexed to see things at Court ordered as they are by nobody that attends to business, but every man himself or his own pleasures. He cries up my Lord Ashley to be almost the only man that he sees to look after business, and with the ease and mastery that he wonders at him."

beneficent ministrations of Dissenting ministers had sensibly mitigated its horrors among the sufferers in London, it is as difficult for us to understand the intolerance of the former Act, as it is to realize the extravagant spirit of loyalty which nearly carried the latter Bill. But the tenor of each measure clearly indicates how galling had been the yoke of that Puritanism which excited so strong a reaction.

His impulsiveness was of such a combative character that every public question was, to his view, coloured rather by its relations to himself and his position than In this year Ashley formed the acquaintby its eventual bearings on the public ance of John Locke, an acquaintance which weal. Whether in office or in opposition, ripened into a friendship honourable to he was an equally keen advocate both in both, although ultimately dangerous to defence and attack. Thus we find him, Locke. The foundation of their intimacy on one memorable occasion, defending the was a malady of Ashley, caused by the King's prerogative even against the King's accident to which we have already rewish. He had been appointed, after the ferred. Owing to the plague, Parliament beginning of the Dutch War, Treasurer of had adjourned from London to Oxford, the King's Prizes, which, under the pre- and Ashley was staying there after the vailing system of percentages, was proba-prorogation. Locke was a student at bly a very lucrative post. While he held Christ Church, and, after a brief diplo

matic apprenticeship, studying medicine. |ished for life, and was made liable to the Ashley had consulted Dr. Thomas, a resi- punishment of death if he returned to Engdent physician, respecting some waters, land. There had never been any long or and Thomas, unable to attend, had de- close intimacy between Ashley and Clarputed Locke. The connection thus formed endon, and official ties in that age were involved Locke in all the perils then at- not regarded as strongly binding. No tendant on the friends of obnoxious states- two men could have been more unlike men. Suspected of having written pam- than Ashley and Clarendon; the one vain, phlets under the inspiration of his patron, restless, aspiring, and ambitious; the other he shared the disgrace which fell on the staid, haughty, obstinate, and imperious. latter, and after Ashley's death was pun- The proud and overbearing disposition of ished with exile. For this penalty Eng- Clarendon must have affronted when it land has reason to be grateful, for she did not cow the volatile energy of Ashley. owes to it the Essay on the Human Un- Nor must it be overlooked that certain derstanding." transactions in Clarendon's life had made This was a hard time for England. it very difficult to defend him from popuFrance and Denmark had allied them-lar obloquy. His connivance at the sale selves to Holland against her. The Great of Dunkirk to France, and his share in Plague had carried terror and death into riveting the dependence of Charles on the London. The Great Fire had followed French King's gold, had made him as unthe Great Plague. There were universal popular with high-principled patriots as complaints of financial mismanagement. his narrow Churchmanship and indomitSimultaneously a great depreciation had able bigotry had made him odious with taken place in the value of landed prop- the persecuted and obstinate sectaries. erty; rents had gone down, and land could be bought for sixteen years' purchase. It is curious at this time to find Ashley coming forward as an opponent of the importation of Irish cattle into England, for no better reason than a fear that it would injure English agriculturists!

Ashley was not likely to have much love for Clarendon, nor to grieve over his removal, and although he might hesitate to begin the attack on the Chancellor, he would have less hesitation in pushing him in his descent, when the victim had lost the friendship of the King and the regard England was now weary of the war she of the people. When Clarendon fled, the was waging against Holland, and France influence and power of the Ministry passed was equally weary of her alliance with into other hands. The age and indolence Holland. A secret treaty was effected of Lord Southampton, and subsequently between Louis and Charles by the intervention of the Dowager Queen Henrietta Maria, and France discontinued her reluctant and languid hostilities. Holland a little later concluded a war which had been as glorious to herself as it was disgraceful to England.

his death, had made Clarendon the real chief minister of the Crown. That authority could not descend on any one person. It was therefore divided among several. He was succeeded by a knot of men, whose term of office was rendered memorable by one constitutional innovation, In the same year Lord Southampton, and infamous by many perfidious intrigues. Lord High Treasurer, died. The Treas- The Cabal contained the germ of a minisury was accordingly put into Commission. terial cabinet, and therefore the germ of Ashley, still Chancellor of the Exchequer, ministerial responsibility. But the memwas a commissioner with Sir W. Coventry, bers of the cabinet, of whom Ashley was Sir John Duncombe, and Sir T. Clifford one, unconscious of the want which they as colleagues. In the same year Claren- were destined to illustrate rather than don was removed from the Chancellorship. supply, wove such a complex web of dark Whether Ashley was in any way acces- and dirty intrigues that the period of their sory to his disgrace is not very clear, and existence is generally regarded as the most certainly is not important. In an age of disgraceful in the later portion of English such changeful and shifty politics, it is history. For the minute record of their difficult to say when statesmen were not intrigues and sub-intrigues we must reopposing or intriguing against each other. fer the reader to Mr. Christie's careful It is certain that Ashley opposed the narrative. It is only fair, however, to prevague and general impeachment of Clar-mise that they began their career with a endon for treason without assignment of policy which they too flagrantly abanspecific acts; but it is also certain that he doned afterwards. The power of Spain supported the Bill by which Clarendon, which English statesmen had hitherto after he had fled the country, was ban- dreaded, was waning, while that of France,

which they had not yet had reason to all the members of the Cabal. Only Ardread, was rising. The men of the Cabal, lington and Clifford were privy to it. To by the instrumentality of Temple, formed hoodwink the other members a second the Triple Alliance which united England, treaty was set on foot, in negotiating Sweden, and Holland against the young which Lauderdale and Buckingham were and ardent ambition of Louis XIV. This engaged, and the terms of which were to was a just and natural alliance. It was be made known, as they were in a third the alliance of three nations connected by treaty dated fourteen months later, and language, religion and blood. They were intended to mislead the world as to the all Protestants, all maritime, and all com- duration of the mutual understanding bemercial. It has seldom been the good for- tween the two Kings. This last treaty tune of diplomacy to affix its seal to an was signed by all the members of the Caunion so distinctly indicated by natural bal, including Ashley, who, as Mr. Christie affinities. Yet of the men who were active points out, seems to have been quite unin forming it, all were in different degrees aware of the provisions of the first, which active in breaking it. And that it could guaranteed the establishment of Popery be broken with safety is more discredit-in Eugland. The whole intrigue was full able to the good sense than to the good of fraud, falsehood, and double-dealing. faith of that age. Charles was indifferent Louis_decoyed Charles; Charles fenced to the honour and glory of England. It with Louis. Two of the Cabal cheated was more congenial to his tastes to sink the other three, and the whole gang into the condition of a paid vassal of cheated the country into an alliance fatal France than to assert the position of an to its honour and interests. Ashley is free English soverign dependent upon the from the guilt of having knowingly asgood-will of an inquiring and investigat- sisted Charles in his scheme to force Poping House of Commons. It was not won-ery on England, but he cannot be acquitted derful that he should prefer au inglorious of having connived at an arrangement by alliance with Louis to an independent alli- which a King of England was to receive ance with a set of Dutch burghers who had learned to govern their country without a king. Still less strange is it that, Roman Catholic as Charles is now known to have been not only in heart but by profession, he should have preferred an alliance with a Catholic to one with a Protestant power. But the odd thing is that Neither does it seem easy to acquit him the rupture with a Protestant Republic in of complicity in another affair, which favour of an union with a Roman Catho- caused just scandal at the time. War was lic despotism should not have been intol-proclaimed against the Dutch in March, erable to the bulk of a people who had 1672, while Parliament was not sitting. emancipated themselves from Popery and The secret treaty with Louis secured from tyranny. The explanation is to be Charles a certain subsidy, but wholly inbe found in the general ignorance of eco-sufficient for so great an undertaking. nomical subjects which then prevailed. The obvious course was to convoke ParliaThe Dutch might be good Republicans and good Protestants, but they were also traders; they were therefore our rivals, and as rivals they must be put down. Their commerce was supposed to injure ours, and therefore must be destroyed. It was this unworthy sentiment which allowed Charles to do with little danger an act at once impolitic and ignominious. He entered in June, 1670, into a secret treaty with Louis to introduce Popery into England, and to receive aid from Louis in case of opposition; to make war conjointly with Louis against Holland. Charles was to furnish the bulk of the ships, and Louis was to pay Charles three million francs annually as long as the war lasted. But this treaty was not known to

money for subordinating England to France in a joint attack on the liberties of the Dutch Republic. If it cannot be truly said of him that singly "the triple band he broke," it is still true that he helped to break it, and thus to forward the designs of Catholic and despotic powers.

ment, but this was a course repugnant to the King. Instead of convoking, he prorogued it to a still more distant date. This measure did not facilitate the acquisition of the money which he required. He therefore resorted to a strange and arbitrary act in order to supply his wants. He shut up the Exchequer, at the cost of a bankruptcy almost wide enough to be called national. It is quite true that Clifford advised, and that Ashley remonstrated against this most flagrant breach of faith. And this Mr. Christie seems to think is sufficiet to absolve his hero from all share in blame in the proceeding. We are of an entirely different opinion. We do not think that the penning of a simple memorandum (which he probably knew

66

would be disregarded by the King) was counsel in the Exchequer business merited all that was required from a Minister who acknowledgment, and on this account prewas not only a Privy Councillor, but also ferred him to Arlington, whom he proa Commissioner of the Treasury and nounced to be too young. Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was Shaftesbury as Chancellor had to adto be made an instrument of robbery. dress the Parliament which met in FebAshley retained his office and was shortly ruary, 1673, after an interval of two years afterwards advanced in the Peerage. So and one year after the beginning of the far as we can ascertain he never, as min- war. It was then usual for the Lord ister, made any attempt to cure the injus- Chancellor to expand and supplement the tice which had been committed, and which Speech with which the King had opened was never wholly redressed. Mr. Christie the Session. On this occasion the King quotes Stringer's memoirs to show that asked for supplies to carry on the war Charles wished to confer on him the post against the Dutch; a war which he deof Lord High Treasurer, but that Ashley scribed as "important, necessary, and exresorted to a multiplicity of devices to pensive." He also expressed his pride in elude the honour. The motive of this the Declaration of Indulgence and his resreluctance, it is urged, was disapproval olution to stick by it. The speech of the of the arbitrary injustice prepetrated by Chancellor followed, expanding that of the King. To us it rather seems that the the King and commenting on it, paragraph unpopularity of that act was sufficient to by paragraph. It called the Dutch the endeter a man of less sensitiveness and less emies of every monarchy, and the rivals shrewdness than Ashley from undertaking of England in trade. "You judged right," the chief control of the national finances. it said "that at any rate delenda est The King certainly wished both to reward Carthago, and therefore the King may him and attach him more closely to well say to you, 'Tis your war.'" When his interests. For Ashley had been useful he referred to the King's debts, the Chanto him in furthering the Dutch war and cellor had the intrepidity to aver that the the French alliance; he had again been "stop of the Exchequer" was forced on useful to him in supporting the Declara- the King much against his will by the intion of Indulgence, by which the King dis- sufficiency of former supplies. And he pensed with the penal provisions of ex- dwelt upon the mildness and toleration isting statutes against Dissenters, and gave of the King as evinced in his Declaration them immunities which it would have been of Indulgence. The whole of his speech wise and politic to perpetuate. In both was in a tone of florid exultation. If it these cases Ashley followed the bent of his expressed his real sentiments, they were convictions, or whatever feeling passed with singularly transitory and evanescent. If him for conviction. He shared the ordinary they were not his real sentiments, he must jealousy which was then generally enter- be held guilty of a most unworthy and tained by the English towards the Dutch; unpardonable simulation. Probably the he shared with many of his countrymen truth lay between the two hypotheses. their prepossessions in favour of the Shaftesbury agreed officially with the tenor French. He had himself been a Presby- of the King's speech, but his agreement terian and had acted with Presbyterians. was not the effect of deep reflection, nor He was therefore in favour of their liberal the source of profound emotion. With and tolerant treatment. In each case his his easy lightness of heart, he lavished own conviction or caprice jumped with npon its embellishment the ready rethe policy of the King, who created him sources of his rhetorical skill, and he knew Earl of Shaftesbury, and was disposed to himself so little that he entirely overmake him Lord Treasurer. On Shaftes- looked the prospect of having on some bury declining this honour, the King con- future day to recant the professions in ferred on him the most exalted dignity in which he had then so liberally indulged. the realm. The Great Seal was taken But though this ready adaptation of lanfrom the keeper, Sir Orlando Bridgman, guage to the exigencies of a position does and given to Shaftesbury with the higher not argue a deep depravity, it strongly office of Chancellor. Upon this Clifford, militates against the supposition that now a peer, became Lord Treasurer, to the Shaftesbury had firm and fixed principles. disappointment of Arlington, who, having In the meantime the English people been Charles's confederate in the secret were undergoing one of those periodical French treaty, reckoned on the King's accessions of anti-Catholic feeling which grateful recollection of his services. recur at intervals in our later history, and Charles probably thought that Clifford's which it would be inconsiderate to de

1132

Mr.

mous Test Bill, which compelled the Duke of York and Clifford to resign their employments, but not before it had secured for the King the subsidy promised by the Commons in the early part of the Session.

nounce as the results of reckless bigotry. five weeks ago, had eloquently described Although neither the conversion of Charles its publication as evidence of the King's or his treaty with Louis were known to goodness and kindness of heart. the world, yet his brother's conversion Christie quotes a paper found at St. Giles's, and the Roman Catholic sympathies of the recommending a reference of the question Court were no secret, and the people be- by the King to the House of Peers, as gan to look with suspicion on any appar- Shaftesbury's. We are by no means sure ent connivance at the obnoxious religion. that it is by Shaftesbury. If he was the It is probable enough that Charles's Indul- author, it is only another proof of the singence was not only intended to compre- gular versatility of his opinions; for he hend both Roman Catholics and Protes- had not only approved, as Chancellor, of tant Dissenters, but was issued with the the King's conduct in cancelling the Decobject of recommending liberality to the laration, but he also expressed his approvCatholics under guise of toleration of the al of it with his usual effusiveness in the Dissenters. Nothing could be more un- House of Lords. The Opposition, still popular than the Declaration was. Its in-flushed with this victory over the King, tention was liberal enough to shock all soon obtained another by carrying the fawho were bigots; its manner was arbitrary enough to shock all who were tolerant. As Lord Macaulay puts it," All the enemies of religious freedom and all the friends of civil freedom found themselves on the same side." Those who cared little for Papists or for Puritans viewed with alarm this new exercise of the Prerogative, and the King's Manifesto aroused at once the political and religious fears of the nation. The Commons promised the sum required for carrying on the War. But after they had promised this, they voted an Address to the King, in which they maintained that "penal Statutes in matters ecclesiastical cannot be suspended but by Act of Parliament." The King cautiously replied, that he would consider it. The controversy continued until the King appealed to the Lords, who answered equivocally. Then the King rejoined, in language which sounds oddly at the present day, "I take this Address of yours," he said, very kindly, and will always be very affectionate to you, and I expect that you will stand by me, as I will always by you." The Lords did not respond to the King's wish that they should act as a buffer between His Majesty and the Commons. On the contrary, they concurred in a joint Address with the Commons against the increase of Popish recusants in the kingdom. They joined in asking for the expulsion of all foreign priests and Jesuits, and for the imposition of a Protestant test on all officers of the Army. Next, the Lords began to prepare a separate address against the Declaration of Indulgence. The King did not wait for its delivery. He anticipated it by cancelling his Declaration within five weeks from the day on which he had expressed his firm resolution to "stick by it." He did not inform the Lords himself of this change, but left it to be told by Shaftesbury, who,

66

Parliament was now prorogued. Osborne, created first Lord Latimer and afterwards Earl of Danby, had succeeded Clifford. Two parties were contending for supremacy in the nation. One supported Popery and the French alliance, the other, and the more powerful, was opposed to both. General opinion regarded Shaftesbury as a leader of the latter party; and he is said to have armed his household against the apprehended attacks of Popish malignants. That the King suspected Shaftesbury of being at the head of the Protestant party is not unlikely. If he did, the conduct of the faction in the House of Commons was not likely to reconcile His Majesty to it or its leaders, for when the two Houses met after their third prorogation, the Commons voted an address, deprecating the consummation of the intended marriage between the Duke of York and the Duchess of Modena, which had already been celebrated by proxy. They further begged that His Royal Highness might not be married "to any person but of the Protestant religion." address was unavailing. Again the Houses were prorogued for a short time, and on their assembling again, the King's speech was followed by the usual supplementary speech of the Chancellor. This Parliament also was prorogued within less than a week, from the 3rd of November to the 7th of January. In the meantime the House of Commons had made itself sufficiently disagreeable to Charles. It had given expression to the popular feeling against the Popish sympathies and the arbitrary tendencies of the Court. It had repeated its remonstrance against the mar

The