II. 1685. vied without Parliament. The King having, as has been related, first pri- CHAPTER vately communicated his intentions to the French ambassadour, issued proclamations for the meeting of Customs leParliament, and for levying upon his sole authority, authority of the customs and other duties which had constituted part of the late King's revenue, but to which, the acts granting them having expired with the Prince, James was not legally entitled. He was advised by Lord Guildford, whom he had continued in the office of Keeper of the Great Seal, and who upon such a subject therefore, was a person likely to have the greatest weight, to satisfy himself with directing the money to be kept in the Exchequer for the disposal of Parliament, which was shortly to meet; and by others, to take bonds from the merchants for the duties, to be paid when Parliament should legalize them.* But these expedients were not suited to the King's views, who, as well on account of his engagement with France, as from his own disposition, was determined to take no step that might indicate an intention of governing by Parliaments, or a consciousness of his being dependant upon them for his revenue. He adopted, therefore, the advice of Jefferies, advice not resulting so much, probably, either from ignorance or violence of disposition, as Life of Lord Keeper North. CHAPTER from his knowledge that it would be most agreeable II. 1685. to his master; and directed the duties to be paid as in the former reign. It was pretended, that an interruption in levying some of the duties might be hurtful to trade; but as every difficulty of that kind was obviated by the expedients proposed, this arbitrary and violent measure can with no colour be ascribed to a regard to publick convenience, nor to any other motive than to a desire of reviving Charles the First's claims to the power of taxation, and of furnishing a most intelligible comment upon his speech to the council on the day of his accession. It became evident what the King's notions were, with respect to that regal prerogative from which he professed himself determined never to depart, and to that property which he would never invade. What were the remaining rights and liberties of the nation, which he was to preserve, might be more difficult to discover; but that the laws of England, in the royal interpretation of them, were sufficient to make the King as great a monarch as he, or indeed any prince, could desire, was a point that could not be disputed. This violation of law was in itself most flagrant: it was applied to a point well understood, and thought to have been so completely settled by repeated and most explicit declarations, II. 1685. of the legislature, that it must have been doubtful CHAPTER whether even the most corrupt judges, if the question had been tried, would have had the audacity to decide it against the subject. But no resistance was made; nor did the example of Hampden, which a half century before had been so successful, and rendered that patriot's name so illustrious, tempt any one to emulate his fame; so completely had the crafty and sanguinary measures of the late reign attained the object to which they were directed, and rendered all men either afraid or unwilling to exert themselves in the cause of liberty. On the other hand, addresses the most servile were Addresses. daily sent to the Throne. That of the University of Oxford stated, that the religion which they professed bound them to unconditional obedience to their Sovereign, without restrictions or limitations ; and the Society of Barristers and Students of the Middle-Temple, thanked his Majesty for the attention he had shewn to the trade of the kingdom, concerning which, and its balance, (and upon this last article they laid particular stress,) they seemed to think themselves peculiarly called upon to deliver their opinion. But whatever might be their knowledge in matters of trade, it was at least equal to that which these addressers shewed in the laws and constitution II. 1685. CHAPTER of their country, since they boldly affirmed the King's right to levy the duties, and declared that it had never been disputed but by persons engaged in what they were pleased to call, rebellion against his royal father. The address concluded with a sort of prayer, that all his Majesty's subjects might be as good lawyers as themselves, and disposed to acknowledge the royal prerogative in all its extent. Observations on them. If these addresses are remarkable for their servility, that of the Gentlemen and Freeholders of the county of Suffolk was no less so for the spirit of party violence that was displayed in it. They would take care, they said, to choose representatives who should no more endure those who had been for the Exclusion Bill, than the last Parliament had the abhorrers of the association; and thus not only endeavoured to keep up his Majesty's resentment against a part of their fellow-subjects, but engaged themselves to imitate, for the purpose of retaliation, that part of the conduct of their adversaries, which they considered as most illegal and oppressive.* It is a remarkable circumstance, that among all the adulatory addresses of this time, there is not to be found, in any one of them, any declaration of disbelief in the Popish plot, or any charge upon the * Rapin. JI. 1685. late Parliament, for having prosecuted it, though it CHAPTER could not but be well known, that such topicks would, of all others, be most agreeable to the Court. Hence we may collect that the delusion on this subject was by no means at an end, and that they who, out of a desire to render history conformable to the principles of poetical justice, attribute the unpopularity, and downfal of the Whigs, to the indignation excited by their furious and sanguinary prosecution of the plot, are egregiously mistaken. If this had been in any degree the prevailing sentiment, it is utterly unaccountable, that, so far from its appearing in any of the addresses of these times, this most just ground of reproach upon the Whig party, and the Parliament in which they had had the superiority, was the only one omitted in them. The fact appears to have been the very reverse of what such historians suppose, and that the activity of the late parliamentary leaders, in prosecuting the Popish plot, was the principal circumstance which reconciled the nation for a time, to their other proceedings; that their conduct in that business, (now so justly condemned,) was the grand engine of their power, and that when that failed, they were soon overpowered by the united forces of bigotry and corruption. They were hated by a great part of the nation, not for their crimes, |