306

THE CABAL MINISTRY.

[1667.

principle of administration. The terrible experience of thirty years imposed upon Charles some caution in the manifestation of his secret desire to be as absolute as his brother Louis of France. The great Bourbon was encumbered with no Parliament; he had not to humble himself to beg for supplies of insolent Commons; he was not troubled with any set of fellows to inquire into his conduct, and ask for accounts of expenditure; he had the gabelle and other imposts which fell upon the prostrate poor, without exciting the animosity of the dangerous rich; he was indeed a king, whose shoe-latchet nobles were proud to unloose, and whose transcendant genius and virtue prelates rejoiced to compare with the divine attributes. Such a blissful destiny as that of the Bourbon could not befall the Stuart by ordinary means. Charles would become as great as Louis, as far as his notion of greatness went, by becoming the tributary of Louis. He would sell his country's honour,-he would renounce the religion he had sworn to uphold,for an adequate price. But this bargain should be a secret one. It should be secret, even from a majority of his own ministers. Upon this point hinges the disgraceful history of the Cabal.

But though Charles and two of his ministers, Arlington and Clifford, were ready to go any length to make the policy of Whitehall utterly subservient to the policy of the Louvre, and to bring the creed of Lambeth into very near if not exact conformity with the creed of the Vatican-though Buckingham and Shaftesbury had some complicity in these iniquitous purposes-yet there was a power in the State which had become too formidable for king and ministers utterly to despise. The Parliament, servile and corrupt in many compliances, was yet a power that might be roused into sudden indignation by any outrageous exercise of prerogative, and, above all, by any daring attack upon the Protestant tendencies of the nation. The shiftings of politicians, of whom Shaftesbury was the type, from courtiers one day to demagogues the next, were the natural result of the want, during the first ten years of the Restoration, of any great principle of action which would raise politicians on either side above the mere influences of personal ambition. The Monarchy was an accomplished fact: to fight again for a Commonwealth was no longer possible. The Church was re-established, in triumphant intolerance: Presbyterians and Independents had no standing place for a new struggle. The Crown and the Parliament were both open to corruption; and their venality tainted, though not in an equal degree, the advocates of non-resistance and the enemies of that debasing principle. Placemen and patriots each held out the "itching palm" to France. There was no manifest struggle of opinion against power, till the design to bring back England to the communion of Rome became evident. The resistance to this attempt roused the nation out of its apparent apathy. The intolerant passion of the multitude-blind, cruel, frantic in its fears-was quickly absorbed into the general determination that England should be Protestant, which identified itself with civil liberty. Religious liberty grew slowly out of the contest, when the reign of the great enemies of all freedom was terminated by their own folly and bigotry.

The story of the next twenty years, which brings us to the great era of our modern history, would be incomprehensible, if we did not constantly bear in mind, that public opinion had become a real element in national pro

1668.]

ATTEMPTS AT TOLERATION.

307

gress. The Crown was constantly dreaming of the revival of despotism, to be accomplished by force and by corruption. Yet the Crown, almost without a struggle, was bereft of the power of imprisoning without trial, by the passing of the Habeas Corpus Act; and it lost its control over the freedom of the Press by the expiration of the Licensing system. The Church thought it possible to destroy non-conformity by fines and fetters. In its earlier Liturgy it prayed to be delivered from "false doctrine and heresy;" it now prayed for deliverance from "false doctrine, heresy, and schism." Yet when it had ejected the Puritans from the Churches, and had shut up the Conventicles, it laid the foundation of schisms which, in a few years, made dissent a principle which churchmen could not hope to crush and statesmen could not dare to despise. How can we account for the striking anomaly, that with a profligate Court, a corrupt Administration, a venal House of Commons, a tyrannous Church, the nation during the reign of Charles II. was manifestly progressing in the essentials of freedom, unless we keep in view that from the beginning of the century there had been an incessant struggle of the national mind against every form of despotic power? The desire for liberty, civil and spiritual, had become almost an instinct. The great leaders in this battle had passed away. The men who by fits aspired to be tribunes of the people were treacherous or inconstant. But the spirit of the nation was not dead. It made itself heard in Parliament, with a voice that grew louder and louder, till the torrent was once again dammed up. A few more years of tyranny without disguise-and then the end.

The first movements of the Cabal ministry were towards a high and liberal policy-toleration for non-conformists, and an alliance with free Protestant States. A greater liberty to dissenters from the Church followed the fall of Clarendon. We see transient and accidental motives for this passing toleration, rather than the assertion of a fixed principle. The bishops had supported Clarendon, and the king and his new ministers and favorites were therefore out of humour with the bishops. The fire of London had rendered it impossible to carry on the spiritual instruction of the people by the established Clergy; and therefore assemblies to hear the sermons of Presbyterians and Independents were not visited with the penalties of the Conventicle Act. It was, says Baxter, "at the first a thing too gross to orbid an undone people all public worshipping of God, with too great rigour; and if they had been so forbidden, poverty had left them so little to lose as would have made them desperately go on." * Sir Orlando Bridgman, now Lord Keeper, desired a conference with Baxter, "about a comprehension and toleration," in January 1668. The Lord Chief Baron Hale, and Bishop Wilkins, were agreed with the Lord Keeper in promoting this salutary work. The king, says Burnet, "seemed now to go into moderation and comprehension with so much heartiness, that both Bridgman and Wilkins believed he was in earnest in it; though there was nothing that the popish councils were more fixed in, than to oppose all motions of that kind. But the king saw it was necessary to recover the affections of his people." The opportunity of recovering the affections of the great Puritan body, scattered, depressed, but still influential, was thrown away. There were propositions on the part of the non-confor

"Life," Part iii. p. 22.

308

THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE.

[1668. mists; and amendments were suggested and accepted. Baxter says that fourteen hundred non-conformable ministers would have yielded to these "hard terms;" but that when the Parliament met, the active prelates and prelatists prevailed to prevent any bill of comprehension or indulgence to be brought in; "and the Lord Keeper that had called us, and set us on work, himself turned that way, and talked after as if he understood us not." In the king's speech, February 10, 1668, he recommended that they would seriously think of some course to beget a better union and composure in the minds of his Protestant subjects in matters of religion. On the 8th of April, a motion in the House of Commons that his majesty should send for such persons as he should think fit, to make proposals to him in order to the uniting of his Protestant subjects, was negatived by 176 votes against 70.

At the opening of the Session of Parliament in 1668, the king announced that he had made a league defensive with the States-General of the United Provinces, to which Sweden had become a party. This was the Triple Alliance. The nation saw with reasonable apprehension the development of the vast schemes of ambition of Louis XIV. He was at war with Spain; but the great empire upon which the sun never set was fast falling to pieces-not perishing like a grand old house, overthrown by a hurricane's fury, but mouldering away with the dry-rot in every timber. France, on the contrary, was rising into the position of the greatest power in Europe. Her able but vain-glorious king already looked upon the Spanish Netherlands as his certain prey. The United Provinces were hateful to him as the seat of religious and civil liberty. The crisis was come when England, by a return to the policy of Cromwell, might have taken her place again at the head of the free Protestant states of Europe. Was there any real intention in the king or in his ministry to raise up England as a barrier against the designs of France? Or was the mission of Temple to the Hague, by which a defensive alliance was concluded with De Witt in five days, a mere blind to conceal the dark and dangerous schemes for a secret alliance with France? When Charles announced to Parliament this league with the United Provinces and Sweden, it was thought to be "the only good public thing that hath been done since the king came into England."* It was a marvel of diplomacy. De Witt and Temple met as two honest men, without any finesse; and they quickly concluded a treaty which they believed to be for the honour and safety of both their countries. "Their candour, their freedom, and the most confidential disclosures, were the result of true policy." This treaty, says Burnet," was certainly the masterpiece of king Charles's life; and if he had stuck to it, it would have been both the strength and glory of his reign. This disposed the people to forgive all that was past, and to renew their confidence in him, which was shaken by the whole conduct of the Dutch war." At the very time when the ambassador of England was negociating the treaty which promised to be "the strength and glory of his reign," the king was making proposals to Louis for a clandestine treaty, by which England was to be "leased out" to France,

Visit to England of the Duchess of Orleans-Secret Negotiations of the king with Louis XIV. -Renewed persecutions of Non-conformists-Trial of William Penn-The Coventry Act -Assault on the Duke of Ormond-Blood attempts to steal the Regalia-The mystery of his pardon-Shutting-up of the Exchequer-Alliance with France-War with HollandNaval War-Invasion of the United Provinces-Murder of the De Witts-The Prince of Orange-Shaftesbury Lord Chancellor-Declaration of Indulgence-The Test Act.

THERE is a brief record, in the Memoirs of Sir John Reresby, of an event, seemingly unimportant, which led to very serious consequences: "In the summer of 1670 the duchess of Orleans, the king's sister, came over to Dover, where she was met by the king, the duke of York, and the whole Court. Here it was that she confirmed his highness the duke in the Popish superstition, of which he had as yet been barely suspected." The duke of York required no confirmation in his belief. He had long been in secret a Roman Catholic, and attended the private rites of that religion; but at the same time he was in communion with the Church of England. A Jesuit missionary remonstrated with him against this double dealing. James communicated to the king his determination publicly to embrace the Roman Catholic faith. Charles professed the same desire. He, also, though known to be indifferent as to religious matters, had been suspected. Cosmo, the duke of Tuscany, came to England in 1669; and the author of the duke's travels says of Charles, that though he "observes with exact attention the religious rites of the Church of England, there is reason to believe that he does not exactly acquiesce, and that he may perhaps cherish other inclinations." Of

"Travels and Memoirs of Sir John Reresby," 1831; p. 171.

310

SECRET NEGOTIATIONS WITH LOUIS XIV.

[1669. the Cabal ministry Clifford and Arlington were attached to the Church of Rome. Charles and James took these ministers into their confidence at the beginning of 1669. The result was, a negociation with France, which went on for many months; and of which the duchess of Orleans came over, in 1670, to urge the points which the French king was anxious to accomplish by irresistible temptations. The secret treaty between Louis XIV. and Charles II. was concluded at Dover, on the 22nd of May, 1670.* Its principal stipulations were, that the king of England should publicly profess himself a Catholic, when he should consider it expedient to make such declaration; that he should join with the king of France in a war against the United Provinces; that to enable Charles to suppress any insurrection of his own subjects, he should receive two millions of livres, and be aided with an armed force of six thousand men; that of the conquests arising out of the joint war Charles should be satisfied with a part of Zealand. The secret treaty naving been accomplished, another treaty was prepared, in which the article concerning the king's change of religion was omitted; and to this Shaftesbury, Buckingham, and Lauderdale were privy. Charles and his ministers went back to London, to carry on a system of falsehood towards the nation, almost unmatchable amongst the frauds of Courts and Cabinets. The beautiful duchess of Orleans returned to France, to die a victim, as many believed, to the jealousy of her husband. At the meeting of Parliament in October, 1670, the Lord Keeper Bridgman—who we may conclude to have been ignorant of the atrocious confederacy of the king and his more confidential servants-set forth the advantages of the Triple Alliance, and the necessity of being prepared against the ambition of France, by an augmentation of the fleet. The Commons voted that "his majesty should be supplied proportionably to his present occasions ; and when a grant of eight hundred thousand pounds was obtained, the Parliament was prorogued.

The manifestation of a tolerant principle at home, at the beginning of 1668, was as short lived as the inclination to a high and honourable foreign policy. The Act of 1664 against Conventicles, which was about to expire in 1670, was renewed in a more stringent shape. The 12th Clause of this Statute threw down the barriers against the most illegal exercise of its severities: "That this Act, and all clauses therein contained, should be construed most largely and beneficially for the suppressing of Conventicles, and for the justification and encouragement of all persons to be employed in the execution thereof; and that no record, warrant, or mittimus to be made by virtue of this Act, or any proceedings thereupon, shall be reversed, avoided, or any way impeached, by reason of any default in form."+ Waller, who, at his advanced age, was still the wit of the House of Commons, said of the dissenters, "these people are like children's tops; whip them, and they stand up; let them alone, and they fall." Calamy attributes the saying to bishop Wilkins, who, with one other bishop, opposed this Statute. Sheldon, the primate, urged the most vigorous execution of the penal clauses, which were to drive

It was published for the first time by Dr. Lingard, from the original in the possession of Lord Clifford. But the most important of the articles had long previously appeared in sir John Dalrymple's History.

Statutes of the Realm, 22 Car. II. c. i. vol. v. p. 656. "Parliamentary History," vol. iv. col. 445.