---------- The Grand Remonstrance.
---------- Arrest of the Five Members.
GUIZOT, F. Charles I.
---------- Cromwell.
---------- Richard Cromwell.
HANNAY, D. Admiral Blake.
MONTAGUE, F. C. The Political History of England. Vol. vii. From the Accession of James I. to the Restoration (1603-1660).
PART VII
_THE POLITICAL REVOLUTION._ 1660-1689
CHAPTER x.x.xVII
CHARLES II. AND CLARENDON. 1660-1667
LEADING DATES
Reign of Charles II., 1660-1685.
Charles II. lands at Dover May 25, 1660 Dissolution of the Convention Parliament Dec. 29, 1660 Meeting of the Cavalier Parliament May 8, 1661 Corporation Act 1661 Act of Uniformity 1662 Expulsion of the Dissenting Ministers Aug. 24, 1662 The King declares for Toleration Dec. 26, 1662 Repeal of the Triennial Act 1664 Conventicle Act 1664 First Dutch War of the Restoration 1665 The Plague 1665 Five Mile Act 1665 Fire of London 1666 Peace of Breda July 31, 1667 Clarendon"s Fall 1667
1. =Return of Charles II. 1660.=--On May 25, =1660=, Charles II.
landed at Dover, amidst shouting crowds. On his thirtieth birthday, May 29, he entered London, amidst greater and equally enthusiastic crowds. At Blackheath was drawn up the army which had once been commanded by Cromwell. More than anything else, the popular abhorrence of military rule had brought Charles home, whilst the army itself, divided in opinion, and falling under the control of Monk, was powerless to keep him away. When the king reached Whitehall he confirmed Magna Carta, the Pet.i.tion of Right, and other statutes by which the royal power had at various times been limited.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Charles II.: from the portrait by Sir Peter Lely in Christ"s Hospital, London.]
2. =King and Parliament. 1660.=--Something more than Acts of Parliament was needed to limit the power of the king. It had been found useless to bind Charles I. by Acts of Parliament, because he tried again and again to introduce foreign armies into England to set Parliament at naught. Charles II. was, indeed, a man of far greater ability than his father, and was quite as ready as his father to use foreign help to get his way at home. In the first year after his return he tried to get money both from the Dutch and from the Spaniards in order to make himself independent of Parliament, but his character was very different from his father"s, in so far as he always knew--what Charles I. never knew--how much he could do with impunity. Having none of his father"s sense of duty, he was always inclined to give way whenever he found it unpleasant to resist. He is reported to have said that he was determined that, whatever else happened, he would not go on his travels again, and he was perfectly aware that if a single foreign regiment were brought by him into England, he would soon find himself again a wanderer on the Continent. The people wished to be governed by the king, but also that the king should govern by the advice of Parliament. The restoration was a restoration of Parliament even more than a restoration of the king.
3. =Formation of the Government. 1660.=--The Privy Council of Charles II. was, at the advice of Monk, who was created Duke of Albemarle in July, composed of Cavaliers and Presbyterians. It was, however, too numerous to direct the course of government, and Charles adopted his father"s habit of consulting, on important matters, a few special ministers, who were usually known as the Junto. Albemarle, as he knew little and cared less about politics, soon lost the lead, and the supreme direction of affairs fell to Hyde, the Lord Chancellor. Charles was too indolent and too fond of pleasure to control the government himself, and was easily guided by Hyde, who was thoroughly loyal to him, and an excellent man of business. Hyde stood to the king"s other advisers very much in the position of a modern Prime Minister, but he carefully avoided introducing the name, though it was already in vogue in France, and contented himself with the real influence given him by his superior knowledge. In religion and politics he was still what he had been in =1641= (see pp. 533, 534). He was a warm supporter of episcopacy and the Prayer Book. As a lawyer, he applauded the political checks upon the Crown which had been the work of the first months of the Long Parliament, whilst he detested all the revolutionary measures by which, in the autumn of =1641=, attempts had been made to establish the supremacy of Parliament over the king.
4. =The Political Ideas of the Convention Parliament. 1660.=--Hyde"s position was the stronger because, in politics at least, the Convention Parliament agreed with him. The Cavaliers in it naturally accepted the legislation of the Long Parliament, up to August =1641=, when Charles I. left for Scotland (see p. 532), as their own party had concurred in it. The Presbyterians, on the other hand, who now represented the party which had formerly been led by Pym and Hampden, saw no reason to distrust Charles II. as they had distrusted his father, and were, therefore, ready to abandon the demand for further restrictions on the royal power, on which they had vehemently insisted in the latter part of =1641= and in the earlier part of =1642= (see p. 534). In const.i.tutional matters, therefore, Cavaliers and Presbyterians were fused into one, on the basis of taking up the relations between the Crown and Parliament as they stood in August =1641=. This view of the situation was favoured by the lawyers, one of whom, Sir Orlando Bridgman, pointed out that, though the king was not responsible, his ministers were; and, for the time, every one seemed to be satisfied with this way of keeping up the indispensable understanding between king and Parliament. What would happen if a king arose who, like Charles I., deliberately set himself against Parliament, no one cared to inquire.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Edward Hyde, first Earl of Clarendon, 1608-1674: from an engraving by Loggan.]
5. =Execution of the Political Articles of the Declaration of Breda. 1660.=--Of the four articles of the Declaration of Breda, three were concerned with politics, and these were adopted by Parliament, with such modifications as it pleased to make. The estates of the king and of the bishops and chapters were taken out of the hands of those who had acquired them, but all private sales were declared valid, though Royalists had often sold their land in order to pay the fines imposed on them by the Long Parliament. An Act of Indemnity was pa.s.sed, in which, however, there were many exceptions, and, in the end, thirteen regicides, together with Vane, were executed, and the bodies of Cromwell, Ireton, and Bradshaw dug up and hanged. The bodies of other noted persons, including those of Pym and Blake, which had been buried in Westminster Abbey, were also dug up, and thrown into a pit outside. Many regicides and other partisans of the Commonwealth and Protectorate were punished with imprisonment and loss of goods, whilst others, again, who escaped, remained exiles till their death. Money was raised in order that the army might be paid as had been promised, after which it was disbanded. Feudal dues and purveyance were abolished, and an excise voted to Charles in their place. The whole revenue of the Crown was fixed at 1,200,000_l._
[Ill.u.s.tration: A mounted n.o.bleman and his squire: from Ogilby"s _Coronation Procession of Charles II._]
[Ill.u.s.tration: Dress of the Horse Guards at the Restoration: from Ogilby"s _Coronation Procession of Charles II._]
[Ill.u.s.tration: Yeoman of the Guard: from Ogilby"s _Coronation Procession of Charles II._]
6. =Ecclesiastical Debates. 1660.=--On ecclesiastical matters the two parties were less harmonious. The cavaliers wanted to restore episcopacy and the Prayer Book. The Presbyterians were ready to go back in religion, as in politics, to the ideas of August, =1641=, and to establish a modified episcopacy, in which bishops would be surrounded with clerical councillors, whose advice they would be bound to take. To this scheme Charles gave his approval, and it is probable that if nothing else had been in question Parliament would have accepted it. Charles, however, had an object of his own. His life was dissolute, and, being without any religious convictions, he cherished, like some other dissolute men of that time, a secret attachment to the Church of Rome. In order to do that Church a good turn, he now asked for a toleration in which all religions should be included. The proposal to include Roman Catholics in the proposed toleration wrecked the chances of modified episcopacy. Cavaliers and Presbyterians were so much afraid of the Roman Catholics that when a bill for giving effect to the scheme for uniting episcopacy and Presbyterianism was brought into Parliament, it was rejected through fear lest it should be a prelude to some other tolerationist measure favouring the Roman Catholics. On December 29, =1660=, the Convention Parliament was dissolved.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Shipping in the Thames, _circa_ 1660: from p.r.i.c.ke"s _South Prospect of London_.]
7. =Venner"s Plot and its Results. 1661.=--No one in the Convention Parliament had had any sympathy with the Independents, and still less with the more fanatical sects which had received toleration when the Independents were in power. The one thing which the people of England as a body specially detested was the rule of the Cromwellian army, and the two parties therefore combined to persecute the Independents by whom that army had been supported. In January, =1661=, a party of fanatics, knowing that they at least had nothing to hope, rose in insurrection in London under one Venner, a cooper. The rising was easily put down, but it gave an excuse to Charles--who was just then paying off the army--to retain two regiments, one of horse and one of foot, besides a third, which was in garrison at Dunkirk. There was thus formed the nucleus of an army the numbers of which, before long, amounted to 5,000. To have an armed force at all was likely to bring suspicion upon Charles, especially as his revenue did not suffice for the payment of 5,000 men without having recourse to means which would cause ill-feeling between himself and Parliament.
8. =The Cavalier Parliament, and the Corporation Act. 1661.=--On May 8, =1661=, a new Parliament, sometimes known as the Cavalier Parliament, met. In times of excitement, nations are apt to show favour to the party which has a clear and decided opinion; and, on this occasion, nine-tenths of the new members were Cavaliers. The new Parliament voted that neither House could pretend to the command of the militia, nor could lawfully make war upon the king. Before the end of =1661= it pa.s.sed the Corporation Act, which was aimed at the Presbyterians as well as at the Independents. All who held office in munic.i.p.al corporations were to renounce the Covenant, and to take an oath of non-resistance, declaring it to be unlawful to bear arms against the king; and no one in future was to hold munic.i.p.al office who had not received the Sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. This Act did more than exclude from corporations those who objected to submit to its injunctions. In many towns the corporations elected the members of the House of Commons, and hence, by excluding non-conformists from corporations in towns, Parliament indirectly excluded them from many seats in the House of Commons.
9. =The Savoy Conference, and the Act of Uniformity.
1661-1662.=--After the dissolution of the Convention Parliament, the old number of bishops was filled up, and, in April =1661=, a conference between some bishops and some Presbyterian clergy was held at the Savoy Palace, and has therefore been known as the Savoy Conference. The two parties differed too much to come to terms, and the whole question of the settlement of the Church was left to the Cavalier Parliament. In =1662= Parliament decided it by pa.s.sing the Act of Uniformity. Every clergyman and every schoolmaster refusing to express, by August 24, his unfeigned consent to everything contained in the Book of Common Prayer, was to be precluded from holding a benefice. On August 24 (St. Bartholomew"s day), about 2,000 clergy resigned their cures for conscience" sake, as their opponents had, in the time of Puritan domination, been driven from their cures, rather than take the Covenant.
10. =The Dissenters. 1662.=--The expulsion of the dissenting clergy, as they were now called, made a great change in the history of English Christianity. The early Puritans wished, not to separate from the national Church, but to mould the national Church after their own fashion. The Independents set the example of separating from the national Church, in order to form communities outside it. The Presbyterian clergy who kept up the tradition of the early Puritans were now driven out of the national Church, and were placed in very much the same position as the Independents. Hence, these two bodies, together with the Baptists and the Society of Friends--popularly known as Quakers--and other sects which had recently arisen, began to be known by the common name of Dissenters. The aim of those who had directed the meeting of the Savoy Conference had been to bring about comprehension, that is to say, the continuance within the Church of those who, after its close, became Dissenters. Their failure had resulted from the impossibility of finding any formularies which could satisfy both parties; and in consequence of this failure the Dissenters now abandoned all thought of comprehension, and contented themselves with asking for toleration, that is to say, for permission to worship apart from the Church, in their own a.s.semblies.
11. =The Parliamentary Presbyterians. 1662.=--The Presbyterian clergy were followed by most of their supporters among the tradesmen and merchants of the towns. They were not followed by the Presbyterians among the gentry. The party in Parliament, which had hitherto styled itself Presbyterian, had originally become so mainly through dislike of the power of the bishops. They now consented to accept the Prayer Book, when they found that the regulation of the Church was to depend on Acts of Parliament and not either on the bishops or the king. The few members of the House of Commons who had hitherto been known as Presbyterians formed the nucleus of a party of toleration, asking for a modification of the law against Dissenters, though refusing to become Dissenters themselves.
12. =Profligacy of the Court. 1662.=--On the other hand, the members of the Cavalier party had, in =1641=, become Royalists because they desired the retention of the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, and, in =1662=, the Cavaliers were supporters of the Church even more than they were Royalists. As soon as Charles expressed his approval of the Act of Uniformity, and not before, the House of Commons voted him a chimney tax of two shillings on every chimney. If Charles had been an economical man, instead of an extravagant one, he might possibly have contrived to live within his income. He was, however, beyond measure extravagant. The reaction against Puritanism was not political only. There were plenty of sober men amongst the English gentry, but there were also many who had been so galled by the restrictions of Puritanism that they had thrown off all moral restraint. Riot and debauchery became the fashion, and in this bad fashion Charles"s court led the way.
13. =Marriage of Charles II., and Sale of Dunkirk. 1662.=--In =1662= Charles married Catharine of Braganza, a Portuguese Princess. He professed his intention of leading a new life, but he was weak as water, and he soon returned to his evil courses. Politically alone was the marriage of importance. Catharine brought with her the possessions of Tangier, and of Bombay, the first spot on the soil of India acquired by the English Crown. It was also a seal of friendship between Charles and Louis XIV. of France. Louis had made peace with Spain by the Treaty of the Pyrenees in =1659=, but he still sympathised with the efforts of Portugal to maintain the independence of which Spain had robbed her in =1580= (see p. 454), and which she had recovered in =1640=. Charles"s marriage was, therefore, a declaration in favour of France. In November, =1662=, after Parliament had dispersed for a vacation, he further showed his attachment to France, by selling Dunkirk to Louis for 200,000_l._ By abandoning Dunkirk, Charles saved an annual cost of 120,000_l._, which he would be able, if he pleased, to spend on an army. It may be doubted whether the possession of Dunkirk was of any real use, but there was a howl of indignation, in consequence of its loss, especially directed against Hyde, who had been created Earl of Clarendon in =1661=, and was building a town house on a scale commensurate with his dignity. This house was popularly called Dunkirk House, it being falsely supposed that Clarendon received from Louis bribes which were expended upon it.
14. =The Question of Toleration Raised. 1662-1663.=--Before Parliament met, Charles, on December 26, =1662=, issued a declaration in favour of toleration. He asked Parliament to pa.s.s an Act enabling him to mitigate the rigour of the Act of Uniformity by exercising that dispensing power "which he conceived to be inherent in him." Again and again, in former reigns, the king had dispensed from the penalties imposed by various laws, though there had been times when Parliament had remonstrated in cases where those penalties were imposed to restrain the Roman Catholic religion. When Parliament met again in =1663=, the Cavaliers rejected the king"s proposal. They would hear nothing of toleration for Dissenters, and still less of toleration for "Papists." The fear of a restoration of "Popery" was the strongest motive of Englishmen of that day, and Charles, who, unlike his father, always recoiled from strong opposition, even consented to banish all Roman Catholic priests. Yet it was in their interest and not in that of the Dissenters that he had issued his declaration. This affair sowed the first seeds of ill-will between Charles and Clarendon, as the latter had warmly supported the opposition to the Declaration.
15. =The Conventicle Act. 1664.=--Parliament was roused to proceed still farther in its course of intolerance. The Act of Uniformity had turned the Dissenting clergy out of the Church, but had not prevented them from holding meetings for worship. In May =1664= a Conventicle Act was pa.s.sed, by which any adult attending a conventicle was made liable to an ascending scale of penalties, ending in seven years" transportation, according to the number of times that the offence had been committed. A conventicle was defined as being a religious meeting not in accordance with the practice of the Church of England, at which more than four persons were present in addition to the household. The sentence of transportation was, indeed, a terrible one, as it implied working like a slave, generally under the burning sun in Barbadoes or some West India colony. The simple-minded Pepys, whose Diary throws light on the social conditions of the time, met some of the worshippers on their way to the inevitable sentence. "They go like lambs," he writes, "without any resistance. I would to G.o.d they would conform, or be more wise and not be catched." It was fear which produced the eagerness of English gentlemen to persecute Dissenters. They remembered how they had themselves been kept under by Cromwell"s Puritan army, and, knowing that most of Cromwell"s soldiers were still in the prime of life, they feared lest, if the Dissenters were allowed to gather head, they might become strong enough to call again to arms that ever-victorious army.
16. =The Repeal of the Triennial Act. 1664.=--In the spring of =1664=, before the pa.s.sing of the Conventicle Act, the Cavalier Parliament had been alarmed lest it should be thought that it ought to be dissolved in the following May, because it would then have sat three years, in compliance with the Triennial Act. In reality there was nothing in the Triennial Act or in any other Act which rendered Parliament liable to dissolution, as long as the king lived, unless he chose to dissolve it; but Charles, who did not like the fetters which that Act imposed upon him, took the opportunity to ask Parliament to repeal it. This was promptly done, though in the Act of Repeal was included a clause to the effect that there should, in future, be no intermission of Parliaments for more than three years.
As the whole of the machinery invented by the Long Parliament for giving effect to such a clause (see p. 530) had vanished, no king could now be compelled to summon Parliament unless he wished to do so.
17. =Growing Hostility between England and the Dutch.
1660-1664.=--It was not fear, but commercial rivalry, which made England hate the Dutch. In =1660= the Convention Parliament had re-enacted the Navigation Act (see p. 565). Legislation alone, however, could not prevent the Dutch from driving the English out of the markets of the world, either by superior trading capacity, or by forcibly excluding them from ports in which Dutch influence was supreme. Besides this, the Dutch refused to surrender Pularoon, a valuable spice-bearing island in the East Indies, though they had engaged to do so by treaty. If there was anything about which Charles II. was in earnest it was in the spread of English colonies and commerce. He had also private reasons for bearing ill-will against the Dutch, who by abolishing the office of Stadholder (see p. 565) in =1650=, had deprived the young William of Orange, the son of Charles"s sister Mary, of any post in the Republic. The seven provinces were held together by the necessity of following the counsels of the Province of Holland, by far the most extensive and the wealthiest of the seven, if they were to preserve any unity at all. The opinion of this Province was the more readily accepted because the provincial states by which it was governed submitted to be led by their pensionary, John de Witt, one of the most vigorous and most prudent statesmen of the age. A pensionary was only an officer bound to carry out the orders of the States, but the fact that all business pa.s.sed through his hands made a man of John de Witt"s ability, the director of the policy which he was supposed to receive from others.
18. =Outbreak of the First Dutch War of the Restoration.
1664-1665.=--In =1664= hostilities broke out between England and the Dutch Republic, without any declaration of war. English fleets captured Dutch vessels on the coast of Africa, seized islands in the West Indies, and took possession of the Dutch settlement in America called by its founders New Amsterdam, but re-named by the English New York, after the king"s only surviving brother, the Duke of York, who was Lord High Admiral. Later in the year, De Ruyter, one of the best of the Dutch admirals, retaliated by seizing most of the English forts on the coast of Guinea, and in =1665= war was openly declared. Parliament made what was then the enormous grant of 2,500,000_l._, and on June 3 a battle was fought off Lowestoft in which the English were completely victorious.
19. =The Plague. 1665.=--The rejoicing in England was marred by a terrible calamity. For more than half a century the Plague had appeared in England, at intervals of five years. It now broke out with unusual virulence, especially in London. The streets there were narrow and dirty, and the air was close, because the upper storeys of the houses overhung the lower ones. No medical aid appeared to avail anything against the Plague. On the door of every house in which it appeared was painted a red cross with the words, "The Lord have mercy upon us." Every one rich enough fled into the country and spread the infection. "How fearful," wrote a contemporary, "people were, thirty or forty, if not a hundred miles from London, of anything that they brought from any mercer"s or draper"s shop; or of any goods that were brought to them; or of any persons that came to their houses! How they would shut their doors against their friends: and if a man pa.s.sed over the fields, how one would avoid another!"
The dead were too numerous to be buried in the usual way, and carts went their rounds at night, accompanied by a man ringing a bell and calling out, "Bring out your dead." The corpses were flung into a huge pit without coffins, there being no time to provide them for so many. It was not till winter came that the sickness died away.
20. =The Five Mile Act. 1665.=--In October, Parliament met at Oxford, through fear of the Plague. It offered the king 1,250,000_l._ for the war if he would consent to fresh persecution of the Dissenters. He took the money, and gave his a.s.sent to the Five Mile Act. The Conventicle Act had been largely evaded, and, during the Plague, Dissenting ministers had preached in pulpits from which the clergy had fled through fear of infection. The Five Mile Act was to strike at the ministers ejected on St. Bartholomew"s day.
Not one of them was allowed to come within five miles of a borough town, or of any place in which he had once held a cure, and was therefore likely to find a congregation, unless he would take the oath of non-resistance, and swear that he would never endeavour to alter the government in Church or State, a condition to which few, if any, of the Dissenters were willing to submit.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Old St. Paul"s, from the east, showing its condition just before the Great Fire from an engraving by Hollar.]
21. =Continued Struggle with the Dutch. 1665-1666.= In the autumn of =1665= the ravages of the Plague kept the English fleet in the Thames, and the Dutch held the sea. On land they were exposed to some peril. Ever since their peace with Spain, in =1648=, they had allowed their military defences to fall into decay, on the supposition that they would have no more enemies who could dispose of any formidable land-force. Now even a petty prince like the Bishop of Munster, hired by Charles, was able, in October, to over-run two of their eastern provinces. The Dutch called upon the king of France, Louis XIV., for help, and he, being bound by treaty to a.s.sist them, declared war against England in January =1666=. If he had given earnest support to the Dutch the consequences would have been serious for England, but though he and other continental allies of the Dutch frightened off the Bishop of Munster from his attack on the Republic, Louis had no wish to help in the destruction of the English navy. What he wanted was to see the Dutch and English fleets destroy one another in order that his own might be mistress of the sea. Through the first four days of June a desperate naval battle was fought between the English and the Dutch, off the North Foreland, at the end of which the English fleet, under Albemarle and Rupert, was driven to take shelter in the Thames, whilst the Dutch had been so crippled as to be forced to put back to refit. On July 25 and 26 there was another battle off the mouth of the Thames. This time the Dutch had the worst, and in August the English fleet sailed along the islands at the entrance of the Zuyder Zee, destroying 160 merchant ships and burning a town. The struggle had been a terrible one. The sailors of both nations were equally brave, and equally at home in a sea-fight, but the English ships were better built and the English guns were better, whilst the Dutch commanders did not work well together in consequence of personal and political jealousies.