[1662 A.D.]

republican Vane (June 6). Far from suing for mercy, he asserted that "the decision by the sword was given [against the late king] by that God who, being the judge of the whole earth, does right, and cannot do otherwise"; and the parliament then became the government de facto, and, consequently, he was entitled to the benefit of the statute 11 Henry VII, for acting in obedience to it. The spirit of the law, if not the letter, was decidedly in his favour, and the judges could only get over the difficulty by the monstrous assertion, that Charles had been king de facto from the death of his father, though "kept out of the exercise of his royal authority by rebels and traitors." The prisoner's defence was most eloquent and able, but it had been determined not to let him escape. Sentence of death was passed on him, the judges refusing to sign a bill of exceptions, which he presented. He was beheaded on Tower Hill (14th). His demeanour was such as was to be expected from his known character. When he attempted to address the people in vindication of himself and the cause for which he suffered, his note-books were snatched from him, and the trumpeters were ordered to blow in his face. "It is a bad cause," said he, "which cannot bear the words of a dying man." One stroke terminated his mortal existence.

The character of Sir Henry Vane stands forth pre-eminent for purity among the republican chiefs. He was disinterested and incorrupt; willing to give to all others the liberty he claimed for himself; the enemy of oppression in all its forms. It is difficult to regard his death as anything but a judicial murder, yet surely there was in it something of retribution. Though taking no immediate share in the judicial proceedings against the late king, he had mainly contributed to his death by his conduct at the Treaty of Newport, and his speech in the house on his return. By the manner in which he furnished evidence against Strafford (whose sentence was little, if at all, less iniquitous than his own), he was a main cause of the civil war, and of all the bloodshed and misery which thence ensued. On the same spot on which Strafford fell one-and-twenty years before, Vane now underwent a similar fate. As the series of blood began with the one, it ended with the other. As Charles I forfeited his word and honour in the one case, so Charles II forfeited his in the other.

THE AFFAIRS OF SCOTLAND AND IRELAND

Having thus far carried on the affairs of England, it is now time that we should notice those of Scotland and Ireland [though they are treated at length in the next volume].

As Scotland had not been mentioned in the Declaration from Breda, the cavaliers of that country breathed nothing but blood and forfeitures.

The union which the commonwealth had laboured to effect was no longer thought of. The earl of Middleton was appointed commissioner for holding the parliament, Glencairn chancellor, and Lauderdale secretary. The fortresses built by Cromwell were demolished, and the garrisons disbanded. As the king had been thoroughly disgusted with Presbytery, and he and his chief counsellors regarded it as incompatible with monarchy, the restoration of Episcopacy was resolved on. The utmost efforts having been made to pack a parliament, that assembly, when it met (Jan. 1, 1661), proved to be suited to all the purposes of the court. It was known by the name of "The Drunken Parliament," on account of the continued inebriety of Middleton and his associates. Its first proceeding was to restore the prerogative in its fullest

H. W.- VOL. XX. R

[1862 A.D.]

extent. In one of Middleton's drunken bouts, it was resolved to adopt a measure which Primrose the clerk-register had proposed half in jest, which was, a general act "rescissory," annulling on various pretexts all the parliaments held since the year 1633. This, though vigorously opposed by the old covenanters, was carried by a large majority, and the Presbyterian discipline was left at the mercy of the crown.

Those who hungered after the large possessions of Argyll now hastened to shed his blood. The base treachery of Monk came to the aid of his enemies. He transmitted to the parliament some private letters in which Argyll expressed his attachment to the protector's government: his friends were silenced, and sentence was pronounced (May 25th). Argyll met his fate with piety and fortitude (27th).

The soil being thus watered with the blood of the covenanters Argyll and the clergyman Guthrey, it was resolved to replant Episcopacy. [The inhuman measures adopted in its re-establishment are detailed in the history of Scotland.]

Unhappy Ireland was also to be regulated anew. No blood was here to be shed, and the church, as a matter of course, resumed its former position; but the adjustment of property was a matter of tremendous difficulty. The tide of conquest had swept over the country, effacing all limits and landmarks. The greater part of the lands were now in the possession of the adventurers who had advanced their money on the faith of acts of parliament passed with the assent of the late king, and of the soldiers of Cromwell's army; but there were numerous other claimants, such as the Forty-nine men, or those who had served in the royal army previous to the year 1649, the Protestant loyalists whose estates had been confiscated, the innocent Catholics, those who had served under the king in Flanders, etc.

The king issued a declaration (Nov. 30, 1660) for the settlement of Ireland; but the Irish houses of parliament disagreeing with respect to it, they sent their deputies over to the king, and the Catholics at the same time despatched agents on their part. Charles was, for obvious reasons, disposed to favour these last, but, like true Irishmen, they seemed resolved that it should not be in his power. They justified their rebellion, denied their massacres, and finally the king ordered the doors of the council to be closed against them. The heads of a bill were then prepared and sent over to Dublin in May, 1662, but it was three years before the final settlement was effected. The soldiers and adventurers agreed to give up a third of their lands, to augment what was called "The Fund of Reprisals," or property still remaining at the disposal of the crown, and which had been shamefully diminished by lavish grants to the dukes of York, Ormonde, Albemarle, and others. Out of this the Forty-nine men were paid their arrears, fifty-four Catholics were restored to their houses, and two thousand acres of land; but there remained three thousand who had put in claims of innocence for whom no relief was provided. Previous to the rebellion, it is said the Catholics had possessed two-thirds of the lands of Ireland; there now remained to them not more than one-third. Sir W. Petty w says that only a sixth remained to the Catholics.

THE PROFLIGACY OF CHARLES: HIS MARRIAGE (1662 A.D.)

We now return to England, where the marriage of the king engaged the attention of his council. Charles was a notorious profligate with respect to While in France he had a son by a Mrs. Barlow or Walters, and imme

women.

[1662 A.D.]

diately on his coming to England, Barbara Villiers, daughter of Lord Grandison, and wife to a Catholic gentleman named Palmer, a woman of great beauty, but utterly devoid of virtue or principle, having thrown herself in his way, made a conquest of his heart, over which she long retained her empire, though only one sultana out of many. The scandal which the king gave by his amours, caused his ministers to urge him to marry; but he resolved not to espouse a Protestant, and his subjects he thought would object to a Catholic. At the suggestion of the French king, however, the Portuguese ambassador offered him the infanta Catherine, sister to the king of Portugal, with a dower of 500,000l., the settlements of Tangier in Africa, and Bombay in the East Indies, and a free trade to Portugal and her colonies.

The money tempted the king; Clarendon and the other ministers approved of the match, but the Spanish ambassador now laboured to obstruct it. He represented that the infanta was incapable of bearing children; that it might cause a war with Spain, and the loss of the Spanish trade; and he offered, on the part of his master, a large portion with either of the princesses of Parma. Charles sent Lord Bristol secretly to Italy, where he saw the princesses as they were going to church. One glance sufficed; the one was hideously ugly, the other monstrously fat. Meantime Louis sent to urge the Portuguese match, offering Charles money to purchase votes in the parliament, promising to lend him 50,000l. whenever he should want it, and to aid him with money in case of a war with Spain. The Spaniard, on the other hand, proposed to the king different Protestant princesses, whom his master would portion equal to daughters of Spain. He also laboured to excite the Protestant feelings of the parliament and city, but to no purpose. The Portuguese match was approved of by the council and both houses, and (June, 1661) the earl of Sandwich was sent out with a fleet to convey the infanta, when ready, to England.

The prospect of her lover's marriage made Mrs. Palmer very uneasy. To reconcile her he made her costly presents, and created her husband earl of Castlemain in Ireland, with remainder to the issue male of his wife, who had just borne to her royal keeper a son at Hampton Court; and finally, lost to all sense of honour and delicacy, Charles pledged himself to make her lady of the bed-chamber to his queen.

On the 20th of May, 1662, the fleet which bore the infanta reached Spithead. Charles, quitting the embraces of the wanton Castlemain, hastened to Portsmouth to receive his bride. They were married privately, according to the rites of the church of Rome, by the Lord Aubigny, the queen's almoner. They then came forth and sat on chairs in the room where the company was assembled, and Sheldon bishop of London pronounced them man and wife. They thence proceeded to Hampton Court, where after some days Charles, taking "The Lady," as Castlemain was called, by the hand, presented her to the queen before the entire court. Catherine had so much command of herself as to give her a gracious reception, but in a few minutes her eyes filled with tears, blood gushed from her nose, and she fell into a fit. Charles now affected the tone of a man of honour; he had been, he said, the cause of Castlemain's disgrace, and he was bound to make her reparation, and he would not submit to the whims of his wife. Clarendon and Ormonde remonstrated, but were harshly reproved, and even required to lend their aid in the royal project; and who will not blush for Clarendon, when he reads that he actually did undertake the odious office? But Catherine would not listen to him. To break her spirit, Charles then sent away her Portuguese attendants, and the presence of Castlemain was continually obtruded on her. The queen long bore up against these studied insults; at length she most imprudently resolved to yield, and

[1662 A.D.]

she humbled herself so far as to admit that abandoned adulteress to her familiarity and friendship.

THE SALE OF DUNKIRK TO THE FRENCH (1662 A.D.)

The queen's portion was soon spent, and to raise money for the royal expenses, Clarendon, it is said, proposed the sale of Dunkirk to the French king: Louis was eager to treat. Clarendon demanded twelve millions of livres, he was offered two, and the bargain was finally concluded for five (Sept. 11th). But Charles wanted all the money, and Louis would only pay two millions down, and the remainder in two years. The treaty was nearly broken off, when it was suggested that Louis should give bills for the balance. This was agreed to (Oct. 17th), and a French banker came over and discounted them. The banker was an agent of Louis, who boasts that he made 500,000 livres on the transaction. Dunkirk was certainly of no direct use to England, but the possession of it gratified the national pride, and the people felt mortified at seeing it sold, and the price squandered away on the king's vices and pleasures.

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTIONS: THE CONVENTICLE ACT AND REPEAL OF THE TRIENNIAL ACT

But the sale of Dunkirk was a trifle to the cruel Act of Uniformity which now came into operation. It had been urged on by the united bigotry of the clergy, of Clarendon, and of the house of commons; the lords in vain attempted to mitigate its severity; the commons were inexorable. It provided that every minister should, before the feast of St. Bartholomew (Aug. 24th), publicly declare his assent and consent to everything contained in the Book of Common Prayer, or lose his benefice. The appointed day came, and about two thousand ministers, the far greater part of them men of extensive learning, sincere piety, and irreproachable life, laid down their preferments, and rather than do violence to their conscience, faced poverty and persecution. It may be said, that the Episcopal clergy had done as much in the late times, but those were times of civil war, and politics were so interwoven with religion, that it was difficult to separate them, and they had the prospect of ample reward in case of the king's success. But now all was peace; the king had been restored in a great measure through the exertions of these very men: there was no longer a political contest; conscience alone could have actuated them. Henry VIII assigned pensions to the ejected monks and friars; Elizabeth had reserved a fifth of the income of the benefices for those who scrupled to comply with her Act of Uniformity; the Long Parliament had done the same; but now no provision whatever was made, nay, care was taken that those who did not conform should lose the last year's income of their livings, as their tithes would not fall due till Michaelmas.

Petitions claiming the benefit of the Declaration from Breda being presented to the king, he took the occasion of setting forth a declaration, promising to exert his influence with parliament in its next session to have his dispensing power so regulated as to enable him to exercise it with more universal satisfaction. His secret object was to procure toleration for the Catholics; but on this head the commons were lynx-eyed; the Protestantism of the royal brothers was strongly suspected, and the Roman priests, in reliance on the court-favour, gave public offence by appearing in their habits. The com

[1663-1664 A.D.] mons therefore (Feb. 1663) rejected the whole scheme of indulgence, and brought in bills to prevent the growth of Catholicism.

Rumours of conspiracies were now spread in order to cast odium on the ejected clergy, and a slight insurrection which did take place this summer in Yorkshire was taken advantage of to pass in the following session (May 16, 1664) the merciless Conventicle Act. By this any person above the age of sixteen, who was present at any religious meeting not held according to the practice of the Church of England, where there were five or more persons beside the household, was to be imprisoned three months for the first offence, six for the second, and be transported seven years for the third, on conviction before a single justice of the peace. This cruel statute speedily filled the prisons, especially with the Quakers. [Transportation meant a practical slavery and heavy toil under the blazing sun of the Barbadoes or some colony of the West Indies.]

The repeal of the Triennial Act of 1641 was effected in this session. The king had the audacity to declare that he would never suffer a parliament to come together by the means prescribed in it; and to please him, a bill was brought in to repeal it, and passed, with a provision, however, that parliaments should not be intermitted for more than three years at the most.

WAR WITH THE DUTCH (1664–1665 A.D.)

Another measure of this session was an address to the king, praying him to seek redress of the injuries inflicted by the Dutch on the English trade, and promising to stand by him with their lives and fortunes. The Dutch were more devoted to commerce than any people in Europe; and as the spirit of trade is jealous and monopolising, they had been guilty of many unjustifiable actions in their foreign settlements, such, for instance, as the massacre of the English at Amboyna in the reign of James I. These however were all past and gone; treaties had been since made with them, in which these deeds had been unnoticed, even so late as the year 1662. Charles himself, though he had a great dislike to the aristocratic or Louvestein party, as it was named, which now ruled in the states, and which had deprived the prince of Orange of the dignity of Stadholder, was little inclined to a war, and Clarendon and Southampton were decidedly adverse to it; but the duke of York, who was lord-admiral, was anxious to distinguish himself at the head of the navy, which his exertions had brought to a state of great perfection; he was also a diligent fosterer of trade, which he justly regarded as a main pillar of the national greatness. He therefore lent his powerful aid to the party desirous of war, and Downing, the resident at the Hague, a man of little principle, spared no labour to widen the breach between the two countries.

The duke of York was at the head of an African company for the purchase of gold-dust and for supplying the West Indies with slaves. The Dutch, who had long traded to Africa, thwarted them as much as possible, and even seized or demolished their factories. The duke had already sent out Sir Robert Holmes, in the name of the company, with some ships of war to the coast of Africa, and Holmes had recovered the castle of Cape Corse and taken that of Cape Verd, and established factories along the coast. The duke had also sent out Sir Richard Nicholas to North America, where the Dutch had settled on the tract of country between New England and Maryland, and named it New Amsterdam. The English claimed this by right of discovery, and the king had made a grant of it to his brother. The Dutch settlers offered