264

SALE OF DUNKIRK TO THE FRENCH.

[1662.

ask a favour. Clarendon, in his 'Life,' tells the issue of this characteristic scoundrelism of "our most religious and gracious king "-the title which the discriminating bishops now gave Charles in the Liturgy: "The king pursued his point: the lady came to the court,-was lodged there, was every day in the queen's presence, and the king in continual conference with her, whilst the queen sat untaken notice of; and if her majesty rose at the indignity and retired into her chamber, it may be one or two attended her; but all the company remained in the room she left, and too often said those things aloud which nobody ought to have whispered. . . . All these mortifications were too heavy to be borne; so that at last, when it was least expected or suspected, the queen on a sudden let herself fall first to conversation and then to familiarity, and, even in the same instant, to a confidence with the lady; was merry with her in public, talked kindly of her, and in private used nobody more friendly."

The Infanta of Portugal brought to Charles three hundred and fifty thousand pounds as her dowry. The English Crown also acquired Tangier, a fort on the coast of Africa. The possession of Tangier, which the nation regarded as worthless, was to compensate for the sale of Dunkirk, which the nation regarded as one of the chief triumphs of the foreign policy of the great Protector. Charles was more eager to put money into his purse, than to gratify the national pride; and Louis the Fourteenth was as desirous to obtain Dunkirk as Charles to convert the Gibraltar of that day into jewels for new mistresses. Louis made a cunning bargain. He gave four millions of livres in bills; and then employed his own ready money to discount his own bills, at a saving of half a million. According to Louis's own account of the transaction, his rival in the treaty was the city of London, the lord mayor having been

deputed to offer any sum, that Dunkirk might not be alienated. Clarendon had advised the sale, although he had a little before, in a speech in Parliament, dwelt on the value of the place. The people, naturally enough, however unjustly, held that the Chancellor had been bribed. The magnificent

1662.]

PROFLIGACY OF THE KING AND HIS COURT.

265

palace that he was building near St. James's was popularly called "Dunkirk House;" and the national dislike of the sale of Dunkirk was one of the first symptoms that his power was on the wane. His participation in that sale subsequently formed an article of his impeachment. The popular opinion that the sale of Dunkirk was to supply new funds for the profligacy of the Court, was confirmed by the public demonstrations of that profligacy. Lord Buckhurst and Sir Charles Sedley had outraged all decency by an exhibition which Pepys recorded in cypher, but which his editor says is "too gross to print." Baxter gives us some notion of "the horrid wickedness" of these titled blackguards, "acting the part of preachers, in their shirts, in a balcony" in Covent Garden.* With such companions was Charles now generally surrounded. All thoughts of business were abhorrent to him. To lady Castlemaine's lodgings he was followed by his "counsellors of pleasure,' who laughed at the "old dotards" who presumed to talk in a serious vein. Rivals to "the lady" now sprung up, with the usual incidents of jealousies and poutings, to be averted by lavish presents to the old favourite, or heavier bribes to the new. The English Court became the ridicule of foreigners. The Dutch caricatured the king in various of his characteristic positions. In one print he was shown with "pockets turned the wrong side outward, hanging out empty;" in another, with two courtiers picking his pockets; in a third, leading two ladies, whilst other ladies were abusing him. The heart

less swindler had appropriated great part of his queen's jointure to his rapa

"Life,' Part iii. p. 13.

+ Pepys, November 28, 1663.

266

INSURRECTION IN THE NORTH.

[1663. cious mistresses. The people, who groaned under the tax of "chimneymoney," and declared they would not pay it without force, were yet pleased with the gossiping familiarity of the king, as he sauntered among them, feeding his ducks in the new Canal in St. James's Park, or joining his nobles in a game at "Pell-Mell." The Chevalier de Grammont saw Cromwell, “feared at home, yet more dreaded abroad, at his highest pitch of glory." He then an affectation of purity of manners instead of the luxury which the pomp of Courts displays." He came to the Court of Charles II., and “accustomed as he was to the grandeur of the Court of France, he was surprised at the politeness and splendour of the Court of England." What that "politeness and splendour" really covered is disgusting to look back upon, when we know that we are beholding the manners of our own countrymen. There were other men than the republican John Milton, who felt that they had "fallen on evil days." There were others than Puritans who listened not to

saw

"the barbarous dissonance

Of Bacchus and his revellers."

The

But, taken as a whole, the nation was degraded. Its old spirit was gone. There was a feeble attempt at insurrection in the north in 1663. This outbreak was partly of a religious character, and partly of a political. insurrection, which was put down by a few of the king's guards, was an excuse for persecuting some of the surviving republicans,-amongst others, colonel Hutchinson, whose quiet and decorous life was an offence which was to be expiated by his death in the damp vaults of Sandown castle. The day of retribution was not yet come: but the handwriting was on the wall. "We are much indebted," says Mr. Hallam, "to the memory of Barbara, duchess of Cleveland, Louisa, duchess of Portsmouth, and Mrs. Eleanor Gwyn. We owe a tribute of gratitude to the Mays, the Killigrews, the Chiffinches, and the Grammonts. They played a serviceable part in ridding the kingdom of its besotted loyalty. They saved our forefathers from the Star-chamber and the High-commission court; they laboured in their vocation against standing armies and corruption; they pressed forward the great ultimate security of English freedom, the expulsion of the House of Stuart."

The abortive insurrection of the autumn of 1663 was made the pretext for a new measure against non-conformists in the session of 1664; and for an important change in the constitution of Parliament. The king, in his speech on the opening of this session, said, "You may judge by the late treason in the north, for which so many men have been executed, how active the spirits of many of our old enemies still are. It is evident they have correspondence with desperate persons in most counties, and a standing council in this town. Some would insist upon the authority of the Long Parliament, of which, they say, they have members enough, willing to meet; others have fancied to themselves, by some computation of their own upon some clause in the Triennial Bill, that this present parliament was at an end some mouths since." The alleged connection of some Fifth Monarchy men with this trifling insurrection of Farnley Wood, near Leeds, of which Bennet, one of Charles's ministers, said that the country was too ready to

1664.]

CONVENTICLE ACT.

267

prevent the disorders-was made the pretext for " An Act to prevent and suppress seditious Conventicles." * The preamble states that the Act is "for providing further and more speedy remedies against the growing and dangerous practices of seditious sectaries, and other disloyal persons, who under pretence of tender consciencies do at their meetings contrive insurrections, as late experience hath showed." But, insolently assuming that all religious assemblies of non-conformists were seditious, it enacted that if five or more persons besides the household were present at "any assembly, conventicle, or meeting, under colour or pretence of any exercise of religion in other manner than is allowed by the Liturgy or practice of the Church of England," then every person so present should, upon record before two justices of the peace, or the chief magistrate of a corporate town, be liable to certain fines, imprisonment, or transportation, for a first, second, or third offence. Under this abominable statute, puritan ministers who had been ejected from their benefices, and their admiring followers, were thrown into prison. Baxter has related in his plain and forcible manner how this law interfered with the ordinary affairs of life amongst serious people: "It was a great strait that people were in, especially that dwell near any busy officer, or malicious enemy (as who doth not?). Many durst not pray in their families, if above four persons came in to dine with them. In a gentleman's house it is ordinary for more than four, of visitors, neighbours, messengers, or one sort or other, to be most or many days at dinner with them: and then many durst not go to prayer, and some durst scarce crave a blessing on their meat, or give God thanks for it: Some thought they might venture if they withdrew into another room, and left the strangers by themselves. But others said, 'It is all one if they be but in the same house, though out of hearing, when it cometh to the judgment of the justices.' In London, where the houses are contiguous, some thought if they were in several houses, and heard one another through the wall or a window, it would avoid the law. But others said, 'It is all in vain whilst the justice is judge whether it was a Meeting or no.' Great lawyers said, 'If you come on a visit or business, though you be present at prayer or sermon, it is no breach of the law, because you meet not on pretence of a religious exercise.' But those that tried them said, 'Such words are but wind when the justices come to judge you.' And here the fanatics called Quakers did greatly relieve the sober people for a time: for they were so resolute, and gloried in their constancy and sufferings, that they assembled openly (at the Bull and Mouth, near Aldersgate) and were dragged away daily to the common jail; and yet desisted not, but the rest came the next day nevertheless; so that the jail at Newgate was filled with them. Abundance of them died in prison, and yet they continued their assemblies still."+ For years were the persecutions under this Statute continued with all the severity that the government could call forth. Clarendon intimates that the Act was not rigorously executed, otherwise it would have produced a thorough reformation. Dr. Creighton, preaching before the king, said that "the greatest part of the lay magistrates in England were Puritans, and would not do justice; and the bishops' powers were so taken away and lessened, that they could not exercise the power they ought." With accommodating magistrates, and a persecuting

16 Car. II. c. 4.

"Life," p. 436.

Pepys, "Diary," March 26, 1664.

268

REPEAL OF THE TRIENNIAL ACT-DUTCH WAR.

[1664.

hierarchy, the times of the Star Chamber would soon have come back. But some magistrates were honest, and some church-dignitaries merciful and tolerant. The Parliament was still compliant enough. They were yet far from manifesting any serious doubts of the value of passive obedience. But their very intolerance towards Protestant dissenters was, in some degree, a result of their suspicion of the king's desire to show favour to the Papists. He claimed a dispensing power as to the relaxation of penal laws in ecclesiastical matters. The Parliament gently denied the king's right to this dispensing power, and a Bill to confirm that power was dropped, to Charles's great displeasure. In the constitutional point of the duration of Parliaments, the Crown was more successful in carrying out its own desires. By the Triennial Act of 1641, in default of the king summoning a new parliament within three years after a dissolution, the peers might issue writs; or the sheriffs in default of the peers; or in default of constituted authorities the people might elect their representatives without any summons whatever. These provisions against such violations of the constitution as had been seen in the time of Charles I., could not affect a sovereign who desired to govern in connection with Parliaments. Charles, in his opening speech in the session of 1664, said, “I need not tell you how much I love Parliaments. Never king was so much beholden to Parliaments as I have been; nor do I think the Crown can ever be happy without frequent Parliaments. But, assure yourselves, if I should think otherwise, I would never suffer a Parliament to come together by the means prescribed by that Bill.” * The first Charles, in the pride of his triumphant despotism, could not have made a more insolent avowal. The famous Triennial Act was repealed; all its provisions for holding Parliaments in defiance of an arbitrary power of the Crown were set aside; and yet it was declared that Parliaments should not be suspended for more than three years. Charles II. lived to violate this law.

The first war in which the government of the restored monarchy was engaged originated in the commercial rivalry of the English and the Dutch. The African Company of England and the African Company of Holland quarrelled about the profits derived from slaves and gold-dust. They had fought for some miserable forts on the African coast; and gradually the contests of the traders assumed the character of national warfare. The merchants petitioned Parliament to redress their injuries; the House of Commons listened with ready ear; the king saw plentiful supplies about to be granted him, some of which might be diverted from their destined use; the duke of York was desirous of showing his prowess as Lord High Admiral. War was declared; and on the 3rd of June, 1665, the fleets of the two great commercial nations were engaged off Lowestoffe. The victory was complete on the side of England. The old sailors of the Commonwealth had still some animating remembrances of Blake, with which they inspired the emulation of their new comrades. The duke of York was not deficient in animal courage; and the courtiers who served as volunteers had not lost the national daring in their self-indulgence. But the victory raised no shouts of exultation in the marts and thoroughfares of London. The great City was lying under the dread of the most terrible infliction, which was approaching to sweep away a

*"Parliament Hist." vol. iv. col. 291.