a

Their names were, the earls of Denbigh, Mulgrave, Pembroke, Salisbury, lords Grey and Fairfax, Lisle, Rolles, St. John, Wilde, Bradshaw, Cromwel, Skippon, Pickering, Massam, Haselrig, Harrington, Vane jun, Danvers, Armine, Mildmay, Constable, Pennington, Wilson, Whitlocke, Martin, Ludlow, Stapleton, Hevingham, Wallop, Hutchinson, Bond, Popham, Valentine, Walton, Scot, Purefoy, Jones.

b

1643.

c

1646.

d

Whitlocke.

NOTE [A]

The following instance of extravagance is given by Walker, in his history of Independency, part II. p. 152. About this time, there came six soldiers into the parish church of Walton upon Thames, near twilight; Mr. Faucet, the preacher there, not having till then ended his sermon. One of the soldiers had a lanthorn in his hand, and a candle burning in it, and in the other hand four candles not lighted. He desired the parishioners to stay awhile, saying he had a message from God unto them, and thereupon offered to go into the pulpit. But the people refusing to give him leave so to do, or to stay in the church, he went into the church-yard, and there told them, that he had a vision wherein he had received a command from God, to deliver his will unto them, which he was to deliver, and they to receive upon pain of damnation; consisting of five lights. (1.) “That the sabbath was abolished as unnecessary, Jewish, and merely ceremonial. And here (quoth he) I should put out the first light, but the wind is so high I cannot kindle it. (2.) That tythes are abolished as Jewish and ceremonial, a great burthen to the saints of God, and a discouragement of industry and tillage. And here I should put out my second light, c. (3.) That ministers are abolished as antichristian, and of no longer use, now Christ himself descends into the hearts of his saints, and his spirit enlighteneth them with revelations and inspirations. And here I should put out my third light, c. (4.) Magistrates are abolished as useless, now that Christ himself is in purity amongst us, and hath erected the kingdom of the saints upon earth. Besides they are tyrants, and oppressors of the liberty of the saints, and tye them to laws and ordinances, mere human inventions: And here I should put out my fourth light, c. (5.) Then putting his hand into his pocket, and pulling out a little bible, he shewed it open to the people, saying, Here is a book you have in great veneration, consisting of two parts, the old and new testament: I must tell you it is abolished; it containeth beggarly rudiments, milk for babes. But now Christ is in glory amongst us, and imparts a farther measure of his spirit to his saints than this can afford. I am commanded to burn it before your face. Then putting out the candle he said; and here my fifth light is extinguished.” It became a pretty common doctrine at that time, that it was unworthy of a christian man to pay rent to his fellow-creatures; and landlords were obliged to use all the penalties of law against their tenants, whose conscience was scrupulous.

f

History of Independency, part II.

g

Parl. History, vol. xix. p. 136, 176.

h

Parl. Hist. vol. xix. p. 165.

i

Burnet, Clarendon.

k

Sir Edward Walker’s Historical Discourses, p. 159.

l

Sir Edward Walker’s Historical Discourses, p. 160.

m

Ibid. p. 166, 167.

n

Ibid. p. 170.

o

Sir Edward Walker’s Historical Discourses, p. 178.

p

Whitlocke, p. 434, 408.

q

Ibid. p. 396, 418.

r

Sir Edw. Walker, p. 165.

s

Id. p. 168.

t

Whitlocke, p. 449.

u

Sir Edward Walker.

w

This is the best of Cromwel’s wretched compositions that remains, and we shall here extract a passage out of it. “You say you have not so learned Christ as to hang the equity of your cause upon events. We could wish that blindness had not been upon your eyes to all those marvellous dispensations, which God hath wrought lately in England. But did not you solemnly appeal and pray? Did not we do so too? And ought not we and you to think, with fear and trembling, of the hand of the great God, in this mighty and strange appearance of his, but can slightly call it an event? Were not both your and our expectations renewed from time to time, while we waited on God, to see which way he would manifest himself upon our appeals? And shall we, after all these our prayers, fastings, tears, expectations and solemn appeals, call these mere events? The Lord pity you. Surely we fear, because it has been a merciful and a gracious deliverance to us.

“I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, search after the mind of the Lord in it towards you, and we shall help you by our prayers that you may find it. For yet, if we know our heart at all, our bowels do in Christ yearn after the godly in Scotland.” Thurloe, vol. i. p. 158.

x

Heathe’s Chronicle, p. 301.

y

Parl. Hist. vol. xx. p. 47.

z

Whitlocke, p. 523.

a

Scobel, p. 121. A bill was introduced into the house against painting, patches, and other immodest dress of women; but it did not pass. Parl. Hist. vol. xix. p. 263.

b

Dr. John Walker’s attempt, p. 147, seq.

NOTE [B]

When the earl of Derby was alive, he had been summoned by Ireton to surrender the isle of Man; and he returned this spirited and memorable answer. “I receiv’d your letter with indignation, and with scorn return you this answer; that I cannot but wonder whence you should gather any hopes, that I should prove like you, treacherous to my sovereign; since you cannot be ignorant of my former actions in his late majesty’s service, from which principles of loyalty I am no whit departed. I scorn your proffers; I disdain your favour; I abhor your treason; and am so far from delivering up this island to your advantage, that I shall keep it to the utmost of my power to your destruction. Take this for your final answer, and forbear any farther solicitations: For if you trouble me with any more messages of this nature, I will burn the paper and hang up the bearer. This is the immutable resolution, and shall be the undoubted practice of him, who accounts it his chiefest glory to be his majesty’s most loyal and obedient subject, “DERBY.”

d

Whitlocke, p. 496. Heathe’s chronicle, p. 307.

NOTE [C]

It had been a usual policy of the presbyterian ecclesiastics to settle a chaplain in the great families, who acted as a spy upon his master, and gave them intelligence of the most private transactions and discourses of the family. A signal instance of priestly tyranny, and the subjection of the nobility! They even obliged the servants to give intelligence against their masters. Whitlocke, p. 502. The same author, p. 512. tells the following story. The synod meeting at Perth, and citing the ministers and people, who had expressed a dislike of their heavenly government, the men being out of the way, their wives resolved to answer for them. And on the day of appearance, 120 women with good clubs in their hands came and besieged the church, where the reverend ministers sat. They sent one of their number to treat with the females, and he threatening excommunication, they basted him for his labour, kept him prisoner, and sent a party of 60, who routed the rest of the clergy, bruised their bodies sorely, took all their baggage and 12 horses. One of the ministers, after a mile’s running, taking all creatures for his foes, meeting with a soldier, fell on his knees, who knowing nothing of the matter asked the blackcoat what he meant. The female conquerors, having laid hold on the synod clerk, beat him till he forswore his office. Thirteen ministers rallied about four miles from the place, and voted that this village should never more have a synod in it, but be accursed; and that though in the years 1638 and 39, the godly women were cried up for stoning the bishops, yet now the whole sex should be esteemed wicked.

f

1647.

g

In October 17, 1650.

h

Thurloe, vol. i. p. 182.

i

We are told in the life of Sir Harry Vane, that that famous republican opposed the Dutch war, and that it was the military gentlemen chiefly who supported that measure.

k

Conference held at Whitehall.

l

See Milton’s State Papers.

m

Parl. Hist. vol. xx. p. 182.

n

These are his expressions. “Indeed, I have but one word more to say to you, though in that perhaps I shall show my weakness: It is by way of encouragement to you in this work; give me leave to begin thus: I confess I never looked to have seen such a day as this, it may be nor you neither, when Jesus Christ should be so owned as he is at this day and in this work. Jesus Christ is owned this day by your call, and you own him by your willingness to appear for him, and you manifest this (as far as poor creatures can do) to be a day of the power of Christ. I know you will remember that scripture, he makes his people willing in the day of his power. God manifests it to be the day of the power of Christ, having thro’ so much blood and so much tryal as has been upon this nation, he makes this one of the greatest mercies, next to his own son, to have his people called to the supreme authority. God hath owned his son, and hath owned you, and hath made you to own him. I confess, I never looked to have seen such a day: I did not.” I suppose at this passage he cried: For he was very much given to weeping, and could at any time shed abundance of tears. The rest of the speech may be seen among Milton’s State Papers, page 106. It is very curious, and full of the same obscurity, confusion, embarrassment, and absurdity, which appear in almost all Oliver’s productions.

o

Whitlocke, p. 543, 548.

p

Conference held at Whitehall.

q

It was usual for the pretended saints at that time to change their names from Henry, Edward, Anthony, William, which they regarded as heathenish, into others more sanctified and godly: Even the New Testament names, James, Andrew, John, Peter, were not held in such regard as those which were borrowed from the Old Testament, Hezekiah, Habbakuk, Joshua, Zerobabel. Sometimes a whole godly sentence was adopted as a name. Here are the names of a jury said to be enclosed in the county of Sussex about that time.

Accepted, Trevor of Northam. Return, Spelman of Watling.
Redeemed, Compton of Battle. Be Faithful, Joiner of Britling.
Faint not, Hewit of Heathfield. Fly Debate, Roberts of the same.
Make Peace, Heaton of Hare. Fight the good Fight of Faith, White of Emer.
God Reward, Smart of Fivehurst. More Fruit, Fowler of East Hadley.
Standfast on High, Stringer of Crowhurst. Hope for, Bending of the same.
Earth, Adams of Warbleton. Graceful, Harding of Lewes.
Called, Lower of the same. Weep not, Biling of the same.
Kill Sin, Pimple of Witham. Meek, Brewer of Okeham.

See Brome’s Travels into England, p. 279. “Cromwell,” says Cleveland, “hath beat up his drums clean through the Old Testament. You may learn the genealogy of our Saviour by the names of his regiment. The muster-master has no other list, than the first chapter of St. Matthew.” The brother of this Praise-god Barebone had for name, If Christ had not died for you, you had been damned Barebone. But the people, tired of this long name, retained only the last word, and commonly gave him the appellation of Damn’d Barebone.

r

Thurloe, vol. i. p. 273, 591. Also Stubbe, p. 91, 92.

s

Thurloe, vol. i. p. 393.

t

Thurloe, vol. ii. p. 429.

u

Ibid. vol. i. p. 616.

w

Thurloe, vol. ii. p. 588.

x

Thurloe, vol. ii. p. 620.

y

Parl. Hist. vol. xx. p. 433.

z

In 1648.

a

This prince, during the civil wars, had much neglected his uncle and payed court to the parliament: He accepted of a pension of 8000 l. a year from them, and took a place in their assembly of divines.

b

Thurloe, vol. iii. p. 103, 619, 653. In the treaty, which was signed after long negociation, the protector’s name was inserted before the French king’s in that copy which remained in England. Thurloe, vol. vi. p. 116. See farther, vol. vii. p. 178.

c

See the account of the negociations with France and Spain by Thurloe, vol. i. p. 759.

d

He proposed to Sweden a general league and confederacy of all the protestants. Whitlocke, p. 620. Thurloe, vol. vii. p. 1. In order to judge of the maxims, by which he conducted his foreign politics, see farther Thurloe, vol. iv. p. 295, 343, 443, vol. vii. p. 174.

e

Thurloe, vol. i. p. 759.

f

Thurloe, vol. i. p. 759.

g

Id. ibid.

h

Id. ibid. Don Alonzo said, that the Indian trade and the inquisition were his master’s two eyes, and the protector insisted upon the putting out both of them at once.

i

Carrington, p. 191.

k

Bates.

l

Clarendon.

m

Vita D. Berwici, p. 124.

n

Burchet’s Naval History. See also Carte’s Collection, vol. ii. p. 46, 47. Thurloe, vol. iii. p. 505.

o

Thurloe, vol. iv. p. 135. World’s Mistake in Oliver Cromwel, in the Harl. Miscel. vol. i.

p

Thurloe, vol. iv. p. 570, 589.

q

Thurloe, vol. v. p. 433.

r

20th of April, 1657.

s

Clarendon, Life of Dr. Berwick, c.

t

Cromwel followed, though but in part, the advice which he received from general Harrison, at the time when the intimacy and endearment most strongly subsisted betwixt them. “Let the waiting upon Jehovah,” said that military saint, “be the greatest and most considerable business you have every day: Reckon it so, more than to eat, sleep, and council together. Run aside sometimes from your company, and get a word with the Lord. Why should not you have three or four precious souls always standing at your elbow, with whom you might now and then turn into a corner; I have found refreshment and mercy in such a way.” Milton’s state papers, p. 12.

NOTE [D]

About this time an accident had almost robbed the protector of his life, and saved his enemies the trouble of all their machinations. Having got six fine Friesland coach-horses as a present from the count of Oldenburgh, he undertook for his amusement to drive them about Hyde-park; his secretary, Thurloe, being in the coach. The horses were startled and ran away: He was unable to command them or keep the box. He fell upon the pole, was dragged upon the ground for some time; a pistol, which he carried in his pocket, went off; and by that singular good fortune which ever attended him, he was taken up without any considerable hurt or bruise.

w

Whitlocke, p. 647.

x

Bates.

y

Trial of the regicides.

z

Bates.

a

Whitlocke, p. 570.

b

Thurloe, vol. iv. p. 57.

c

Thurloe, vol. vi. p. 557.

d

We shall produce any passage at random: For his discourse is all of a piece. “I confess, for it behoves me to deal plainly with you, I must confess, I would say, I hope, I may be understood in this, for indeed I must be tender what I say to such an audience as this; I say, I would be understood, that in this argument I do not make parallel betwixt men of a different mind and a parliament, which shall have their desires. I know there is no comparison, nor can it be urged upon me, that my words have the least colour that way, because the parliament seems to give liberty to me to say anything to you; as that, that is a tender of my humble reasons and judgement and opinion to them; and if I think they are such and will be such to them, and are faithful servants, and will be so to the supreme authority, and the legislative wheresoever it is: If, I say, I should not tell you, knowing their minds to be so, I should not be faithful, if I should not tell you so, to the end you may report it to the parliament: I shall say something for myself, for my own mind, I do profess it, I am not a man scrupulous about words or names of such things I have not: But as I have the word of God, and I hope I shall ever have it, for the rule of my conscience, for my informations; so truly men that have been led in dark paths, through the providence and dispensation of God; why surely it is not to be objected to a man; for who can love to walk in the dark? But providence does so dispose. And though a man may impute his own folly and blindness to providence sinfully, yet it must be at my peril; the case may be that it is the providence of God, that doth lead men in darkness: I must need say, that I have had a great deal of experience of providence, and though it is no rule without or against the word, yet it is a very good expositor of the word in many cases.” Conference at Whitehall The great defect in Oliver’s speeches consists not in his want of elocution, but in his want of ideas. The sagacity of his actions, and the absurdity of his discourse, form the most prodigious contrast that ever was known. The collection of all his speeches, letters, sermons (for he also wrote sermons) would make a great curiosity, and with a few exceptions might justly pass for one of the most nonsensical books in the world.

e

Thurloe, vol. vi. p. 261.

f

He aspired to get possession of Elsinore and the passage of the Sound. See World’s Mistake in Oliver Cromwel. He also endeavoured to get possession of Bremen. Thurloe, vol. vi. p. 478.

g

It was remarked by the saints of that time, that the battle was fought on a day which was held for a fast in London, so that as Fleetwood said (Thurloe, vol. vii. p. 159,) while we were praying, they were fighting; and the Lord hath given a signal answer. The Lord has not only owned us in our work there, but in our waiting upon him in a way of prayer, which is indeed our old experienced approved way in all streights and difficulties. Cromwel’s letter to Blake and Montague, his brave admirals, is remarkable for the same spirit. Thurloe, vol. iv. p. 744. You have, says he, as I verily believe and am persuaded, a plentiful stock of prayers going for you daily, sent up by the soberest and most approved ministers and christians in this nation, and, notwithstanding some discouragements, very much wrestling of faith for you, which are to us, and I trust will be to you, matter of great encouragement. But notwithstanding all this, it will be good for you and us to deliver up ourselves and all our affairs to the disposition of our all-wise Father, who not only out of prerogative, but because of his goodness, wisdom and truth, ought to be resigned unto by his creatures, especially those who are children of his begetting through the spirit, c.

h

Thurloe, vol. i. p. 762.

i

Ibid. vol. vii. p. 151, 158.

k

In reality the cardinal had not entertained so high an idea of Cromwel. He used to say, that he was a fortunate madman. Vie de Cromwel par Raguenet. See also Carte’s Collection, vol. ii. p. 81. Gumble’s Life of Monk, p. 93. World’s Mistake in O. Cromwel.

l

Thurloe, vol. vi. p. 53.

m

Bates: See also Thurloe, vol. vii. p. 355, 416.

n

Cowley’s Discourses: This passage is altered in some particulars from the original.

o

Ludlow.

p

Carte’s collections, vol. ii. p. 243.

q

Ludlow.

r

K. James’s Memoirs.

s

Gumble’s life of Monk, p. 93.

t

Lord Lansdowne’s defence of general Monk.

u

Clarendon.

NOTE [E]

After Monk’s declaration for a free parliament on the 11th of February, he could mean nothing but the king’s restoration: Yet it was long before he would open himself even to the king. This declaration was within eight days after his arrival in London. Had he ever intended to have set up for himself, he would not surely have so soon abandoned a project so inviting: He would have taken some steps, which would have betrayed it. It could only have been some disappointment, some frustrated attempt, which could have made him renounce the road of private ambition. But there is not the least symptom of such intentions. The story told of Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, by Mr. Locke, has not any appearance of truth. See lord Lansdown’s Vindication, and Philips’s Continuation of Baker. I shall add to what those authors have advanced, that cardinal Mazarine wished for the king’s restoration; though he would not have ventured much to have procured it.

x

Lansdowne, Clarendon.

y

Burnet.

z

Sir Philip Warwic.

a

Killing no Murder.

b

The following story is told by Whitlocke, p. 599. Some quakers at Hasington in Northumberland coming to the minister on the Sabbath-day, and speaking to him, the people fell upon the quakers, and almost killed one or two of them, who going out fell on their knees, and prayed God to pardon the people, who knew not what they did; and afterwards speaking to the people, so convinced them of the evil they had done in beating them, that the country people fell a quarrelling, and beat one another more than they had before beaten the quakers.

c

Whitlocke, p. 624.

d

Harleyan Miscellany, vol. vi. p. 399. One Dorcas Earberry made oath before a magistrate, that she had been dead two days, and that Naylor had brought her to life.

e

Id. ibid.

f

Thurloe, vol. v. p. 708.

g

Scobel, p. 419.

h

Thurloe, vol. ii. p. 476.

i

Scobel, p. 376.

k

Thurloe, vol. vi. p. 425.

l

It appears that the late king’s revenue from 1637, to the meeting of the long parliament, was only 900,000 pounds, of which 200,000 may be esteemed illegal.

m

Dr. Walker, p. 14.

n

Thurloe, vol. i. p. 753.

o

Ibid. vol. ii. p. 414.

p

Ibid. vol. vii. p. 667.

q

World’s Mistake in Oliver Cromwel.

r

Whitlocke, p. 298.

s

Ibid. p. 378.

t

Journal, 2d December, 1652.

u

Id. ibid.

w

Journal, 6th of April, 1659.

x

Thurloe, vol. i. p. 395, vol. ii. p. 414.

y

Gumble’s Life of Monk.

z

Whitlocke, p. 477.

a

Journal, 7th April, 1659.

b

Strafford’s Letters, vol. i. p. 421, 423, 430, 467.

c

Clarendon.

d

Lewis Roberts’s Treasure of Traffick.

e

Happy future state of England.

f

Anderson, vol. ii. p. 111.

g

Id. ibid.

h

British Empire in America, vol. i. p. 372.

i

Burnet.

k

Neale’s History of the Puritans, vol. iv. p. 123.

l

P. 639.

m

Parl. Hist. vol. xix. p. 83.

n

P. 633.

o

Journals, vol. viii. p. 24.

p

King James’s Memoirs. This prince says, that Venner’s insurrection furnished a reason or pretence for keeping up the guards, which were intended at first to have been disbanded with the rest of the army.

q

King James’s Memoirs.

r

Parl. Hist. vol. xxiii. p. 173.

s

Carte’s Answer to the Bystander, p. 79.

t

D’Estrades, 25th of July, 1661. Mr. Ralph’s History, vol. i. p. 176.

u

Carte’s Ormond, vol. ii. p. 254. This account seems better supported, than that in Ablancourt’s Memoirs, that the chancellor chiefly pushed the Portuguese alliance. The secret transactions of the court of England could not be supposed to be much known to a French resident at Lisbon: And whatever opposition the chancellor might make, he would certainly endeavour to conceal it from the queen and all her family; and even in the parliament and council would support the resolution already taken. Clarendon himself says in his Memoirs, that he never either opposed or promoted the Portuguese match.

w

Lord Landsdown’s Defence of general Monk. Temple, vol. ii. p. 154.

x

D’Estrades, 17th of August, 1662. There was above half of 500,000 pounds really paid as the queen’s portion.

y

D’Estrades, 21st of August, 12th of September, 1662.

z

It appears, however, from many of D’Estrades’s letters, particularly that of the 21st of August, 1661, that the king might have transferred Dunkirk to the parliament, who would not have refused to bear the charges of it, but were unwilling to give money to the king for that purpose. The king on the other hand was jealous, lest the parliament should acquire any separate dominion or authority in a branch of administration, which seemed so little to belong to them: A proof that the government was not yet settled into that composure, and mutual confidence, which is absolutely requisite for conducting it.

a

Id. 3d of October, 1662. The chief importance indeed of Dunkirk to the English was, that it was able to distress their trade, when in the hands of the French: But it was Lewis the XIVth who first made it a good sea-port. If ever England have occasion to transport armies to the continent, it must be in support of some ally whose towns serve to the same purpose as Dunkirk would, if in the hands of the English.

b

Kennet’s Register, p. 850.

c

The author confesses, that the king’s zeal for popery was apt, at intervals, to go farther than is here supposed, as appears from many passages in James the Second’s Memoirs.

d

Temple, vol. ii. p. 42.

e

King James in his Memoirs gives an account of this affair different from what we meet with in any historian. He says, that, while he was asleep, Brounker brought orders to Sir John Harman, captain of the ship, to slacken sail. Sir John remonstrated, but obeyed. After some time, finding that his falling back was likely to produce confusion in the fleet, he hoisted the sail as before: So that the prince coming soon after on the quarter deck, and finding all things as he left them, knew nothing of what had passed during his repose. No body gave him the least intimation of it. It was long after, that he heard of it, by a kind of accident; and he intended to have punished Brounker by martial law; but just about that time, the house of commons took up the question and impeached him, which made it impossible for the duke to punish him otherwise than by dismissing him his service. Brounker, before the house, never pretended, that he had received any orders from the duke.

f

D’Estrades, 19th of December, 1664.

g

D’Estrades, 14th August, 1665.

h

Tromp’s life. D’Estrades, 5th of February 1665.

i

D’Estrades, 21st of May 1666.

k

The Dutch had spent on the war near 40 millions of livres a year, above three millions sterling: A much greater sum than had been granted by the English parliament. D’Estrades, 24th of December, 1665; 1st of January, 1666. Temple, vol. i. p. 71. It was probably the want of money which engaged the king to pay the seamen with tickets; a contrivance which proved so much to their loss.

l

Temple, vol. ii. p. 41.

m

Some nonconformists however, both in Scotland and England, had kept a correspondence with the States, and had entertained projects for insurrections, but they were too weak even to attempt the execution of them. D’Estrades, 13th October, 1665.

NOTE [F]

The articles were, that he had advised the king to govern by military power without parliaments, that he had affirmed the king to be a papist or popishly affected, that he had received great sums of money for procuring the Canary patent and other illegal patents, that he had advised and procured divers of his majesty’s subjects to be imprisoned against law, in remote islands and garrisons, thereby to prevent their having the benefit of the law, that he had procured the customs to be farmed at under rates, that he had received great sums from the Vintners’ company, for allowing them to inhance the price of wines, that he had in a short time gained a greater estate than could have been supposed to arise from the profits of his offices, that he had introduced an arbitrary government into his majesty’s plantations, that he had rejected a proposal for the preservation of Nevis and St. Christopher’s, which was the occasion of great losses in those parts, that when he was in his majesty’s service beyond sea he held a correspondence with Cromwel and his accomplices, that he advised the sale of Dunkirk, that he had unduly altered letters patent under the king’s seal, that he had unduly decided causes in council, which should have been brought before chancery, that he had issued quo warrantos against corporations with an intention of squeezing money from them, that he had taken money for passing the bill of settlement in Ireland, that he betrayed the nation in all foreign treaties, and that he was the principal adviser of dividing the fleet in June 1666.

o

25th of January, 1662.

p

Burnet, p. 149.

q

Burnet, p. 152.

r

Id. p. 147.

s

Burnet, p. 201.

t

Burnet, p. 202.

u

1664.

w

Burnet, p. 213.

x

28th November, 1666.

y

Burnet, p. 237.

z

Wodrow’s History, vol. i. p. 255.

a

In 1666.

NOTE [G]

The abstract of the report of the Brook-house committee (so that committee was called) was first published by Mr. Ralph, vol. i. p. 177. from lord Hallifax’s collections, to which I refer. If we peruse their apology, which we find in the subsequent page of the same author, we shall find, that they acted with some malignity towards the king. They would take notice of no services performed before the 1st of September 1664. But all the king’s preparations preceded that date, and as chancellor Clarendon told the parliament, amounted to eight hundred thousand pounds; and the computation is very probable. This sum, therefore, must be added. The committee likewise charged seven hundred thousand pounds to the king on account of the winter and summer guards, saved during two years and ten months that the war lasted. But this seems iniquitous. For though that was an usual burthen on the revenue, which was then saved; would not the diminution of the customs during the war be an equivalent to it? Besides, near three hundred and forty thousand pounds are charged for prize-money, which perhaps the king thought he ought not to account for. These sums exceed the million and a half.

c

Mr. Carte, in his vindication of the Answer to the Bystander, p. 99, says, that the sale of the fee farm rents would not yield above one hundred thousand pounds; and his reasons appear well founded.

d

D’Estrades, 21st July, 1667.

NOTE [H]

Gourville has said in his memoirs, vol. ii. p. 14, 67. that Charles was never sincere in the triple alliance; and that, having entertained a violent animosity against de Wit, he endeavoured, by this artifice, to detach him from the French alliance with a view of afterwards finding an opportunity to satiate his vengeance upon him. This account, though very little honourable to the king’s memory, seems probable from the events, as well as from the authority of the author.

f

Temple, vol. ii. p. 179.

g

This year, on the 3d of January, died George Monk, duke of Albemarle, at Newhall in Essex, after a languishing illness, and in the sixty-third year of his age. He left a great estate of 5,000 l. a year in land, and 60,000 l. in money, acquired by the bounty of the king, and encreased by his own frugality in his later years. Bishop Burnet, who, agreeably to his own factious spirit, treats this illustrious personage with great malignity, reproaches him with avarice: But as he appears not to have been in the least tainted with rapacity, his frugal conduct may more candidly be imputed to the habits, acquired in early life, while he was possessed of a very narrow fortune. It is indeed a singular proof of the strange power of faction, that any malignity should pursue the memory of a nobleman, the tenor of whose life was so unexceptionable, and who, by restoring the antient and legal and free government to three kingdoms, plunged in the most destructive anarchy, may safely be said to be the subject, in these islands, who, since the beginning of time, rendered the most durable and most essential services to his native country. The means also, by which he atchieved his great undertakings, were almost entirely unexceptionable. His temporary dissimulation, being absolutely necessary, could scarcely be blameable. He had received no trust from that mungrel, pretended, usurping parliament whom he dethroned; therefore could betray none: He even refused to carry his dissimulation so far as to take the oath of abjuration against the king. I confess, however, that the Rev. Dr. Douglas has shown me, from the Clarendon papers, an original letter of his to Sir Arthur Hazzlerig, containing very earnest, and certainly false protestations of his zeal for a commonwealth. It is to be lamented, that so worthy a man, and of such plain manners, should ever have found it necessary to carry his dissimulation to such a height. His family ended with his son.

h

Carte’s Ormond, vol. ii. p. 225.

i

England’s Appeal, p. 22. This year, on the 12th of November, died, in his retreat, and in the 60th year of his age, Thomas lord Fairfax, who performed many great actions, without being a memorable personage, and allowed himself to be carried into many criminal enterprizes, with the best and most upright intentions. His daughter and heir was married to George Villiers, duke of Buckingham.

k

Temple, vol. i. p. 75.

l

Which may be thus translated.

  • The man, whose mind on virtue bent,
  • Pursues some greatly good intent,
  • With undiverted aim,
  • Serene beholds the angry crowd;
  • Nor can their clamours, fierce and loud,
  • His stubborn honour tame.
  • Not the proud tyrant’s fiercest threat,
  • Nor storms, that from their dark retreat
  • The lawless surges wake,
  • Not Jove’s dread bolt that shakes the pole,
  • The firmer purpose of his soul
  • With all its power can shake.
  • Shou’d Nature’s frame in ruins fall,
  • And chaos o’er the sinking ball
  • Resume primeval sway,
  • His courage chance and fate defies,
  • Nor feels the wreck of earth and skies
  • Obstruct its destin’d way.
  • Blacklocke.
m

Since the publication of this History, the Author has had occasion to see the most direct and positive evidence of this conspiracy. From the humanity and candour of the principal of the Scotch College at Paris, he was admitted to peruse James the Second’s Memoirs, kept there. They amount to several volumes of small folio, all writ with that prince’s own hand, and comprehending the remarkable incidents of his life from his early youth till near the time of his death. His account of the French alliance is as follows: The intention of the king and duke was chiefly to change the religion of England, which they deemed an easy undertaking, because of the great propensity, as they imagined, of the cavaliers and church party to popery: The treaty with Lewis was concluded at Versailles in the end of 1669, or beginning of 1670, by Lord Arundel of Wardour, whom no historian mentions as having had any hand in these transactions. The purport of it was, that Lewis was to give Charles 200,000 pounds a year in quarterly payments, in order to enable him to settle the catholic religion in England; and he was also to supply him with an army of 6000 men in case of any insurrection. When that work was finished, England was to join with France in making war upon Holland. In case of success, Lewis was to have the inland provinces, the prince of Orange Holland in sovereignty, and Charles, Sluice, the Brille, Walkeren, with the rest of the sea ports as far as Mazeland Sluice. The king’s project was first to effect the change of religion in England; but the dutchess of Orleans, in the interview at Dover, persuaded him to begin with the Dutch war, contrary to the remonstrances of the duke of York, who insisted that Lewis, after serving his own purposes, would no longer trouble himself about England. The duke makes no mention of any design to render the king absolute; but that was, no doubt, implied in the other project, which was to be effected entirely by royal authority. The king was so zealous a papist, that he wept for joy when he saw the prospect of re-uniting his kingdom to the catholic church.

Sir John Dalrymple has since published some other curious particulars with regard to this treaty. We find, that it was concerted and signed with the privity alone of four popish counsellors of the king’s, Arlington, Arundel, Clifford and Sir Richard Bealing. The secret was kept from Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale. In order to engage them to take part in it, a very refined and a very mean artifice was fallen upon by the king. After the secret conclusion and signature of the treaty, the king pretended to these three ministers that he wished to have a treaty and alliance with France for mutual support, and for a Dutch war; and when various pretended obstacles and difficulties were surmounted, a sham-treaty was concluded with their consent and approbation, containing every article of the former real treaty, except that of the king’s change of religion. However, there was virtually involved even in this treaty, the assuming of absolute government in England: For the support of French troops, and a war with Holland, so contrary to the interests and inclinations of his people, could mean nothing else. One cannot sufficiently admire the absolute want of common sense which appears throughout the whole of this criminal transaction. For if popery was so much the object of national horror, that even the king’s three ministers, Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale, and such profligate ones too, either would not, or durst not receive it, what hopes could he entertain of forcing the nation into that communion? Considering the state of the kingdom, full of veteran and zealous soldiers, bred during the civil wars, it is probable that he had not kept the crown two months after a declaration so wild and extravagant. This was probably the reason why the king of France and the French ministers always dissuaded him from taking off the mask, till the successes of the Dutch war should render that measure prudent and practicable.

n

Duke of Buckingham’s character of K. Charles II.

o

This year, on the 25th of March, died Henry Cromwel, second son of the protector, in the 47th year of his age. He had lived unmolested in a private station, ever since the king’s restoration, which he rather favoured than opposed.

p

Several historians have affirmed, that the commons found, this session, upon enquiry, that the king’s revenue was 1,600,000 pounds a year, and that the necessary expence was but 700,000 pounds; and have appealed to the Journals for a proof. But there is not the least appearance of this in the Journals; and the fact is impossible.

q

Welwood, Burnet, Coke.

r

Temple’s Memoirs, vol. i. p. 458.

s

Such as the letters, which passed betwixt Danby and Montague, the king’s ambassador at Paris; Temple’s Memoirs, and his Letters. In these last, we see that the king never made any proposals of terms but what were advantageous to France, and the prince of Orange believed them to have always been concerted with the French ambassador. Vol. i. p. 439.

In Sir John Dalrymple’s Appendix, p. 103, it appears, that the king had signed himself, without the participation of his ministers, a secret treaty with France, and had obtained a pension on the promise of his neutrality: A fact, which renders his royal word, solemnly given to his subjects, one of the most dishonourable and most scandalous acts, that ever proceeded from a throne.

t

Sir John Dalrymple’s Appendix, p. 112.

u

Temple, vol. i. p. 461.

w

To wit, 3000 men for Scotland, and the usual guards and garrisons in England, amounting to near 5000 men. Sir J. Dalrymple’s App. p. 161.

x

Sir John Dalrymple, in his Appendix, has given us, from Barillon’s dispatches in the Secretary’s office at Paris, a more particular detail of these intrigues. They were carried on with lord Russel, lord Hollis, lord Berkshire, the duke of Buckingham, Algernon Sydney, Montague, Bulstrode, col. Titus, sir Edward Harley, sir John Baber, sir Roger Hill, Boscawen, Littleton, Powle, Harbord, Hambden, sir Thomas Armstrong, Hotham, Herbert, and some others of less note. Of these, lord Russel and lord Hollis alone refused to touch any French money: All the others received presents or bribes from Barillon. But we are to remark, that the party views of these men, and their well-founded jealousies of the king and duke, engaged them, independently of the money, into the same measures that were suggested to them by the French ambassador. The intrigues of France, therefore, with the parliament were a mighty small engine in the political machine. Those with the king, which have always been known, were of infinitely greater consequence. The sums distributed to all these men, excepting Montague, did not exceed 16,000 pounds in three years; and therefore could have little weight in the two houses, especially when opposed to the influence of the crown. Accordingly we find, in all Barillon’s dispatches, a great anxiety that the parliament should never be assembled. The conduct of these English patriots was more mean than criminal; and monsieur Courten says, that two hundred thousand livres employed by the Spaniards and Germans, would have more influence than two millions distributed by France. See Sir J. Dalrymple’s App. p. 111. It is amusing to observe the general, and I may say national, rage excited by the late discovery of this secret negotiation; chiefly on account of Algernon Sydney, whom the blind prejudices of party had exalted into a hero. His ingratitude and breach of faith, in applying for the king’s pardon, and immediately on his return entering into cabals for rebellion, form a conduct much more criminal than the taking of French gold: Yet the former circumstance was always known, and always disregarded. But every thing connected with France is supposed, in England, to be polluted beyond all possibility of expiation. Even lord Russel, whose conduct in this negotiation was only factious, and that in an ordinary degree, is imagined to be dishonoured by the same discovery.

y

19th of October, 1669.

z

28th of July, 1670.

a

In 1675.

b

Burnet.

c

Oates’s narrative.

d

Burnet, Echard, North, L’Estrange, c.

e

Burnet, North.

f

North.

g

Burnet, North, Trials.

h

North, p. 206.

i

North, p. 205.

k

They had granted him 600,000 pounds for disbanding the army, for reimbursing the charges of his naval armament, and for paying the princess of Orange’s portion.

l

North, p. 207.

m

North’s Examen. p. 186.

n

Burnet, vol. i. p. 437.

o

Appendix to Sir John Dalrymple’s Memoirs.

p

3d of December.

q

Sir William Scroggs.

r

In 1566, the speaker said to Q. Elizabeth, that without her allowance the election of the house was of no significance. D’Ewes’s journal, p. 97. In the parliament 1592, 1593, the speaker, who was Sir Edward Coke, advances a like position. D’Ewes, p. 459. Townshend, p. 35. So that this pretension of the commons seems to have been somewhat new; like many of their other powers and privileges.

s

Their names were: Prince Rupert, the archbishop of Canterbury, lord Finch, chancellor, earl of Shaftesbury, president, earl of Anglesea, privy seal, duke of Albemarle, duke of Monmouth, duke of Newcastle, duke of Lauderdale, duke of Ormond, marquess of Winchester, marquess of Worcester, earl of Arlington, earl of Salisbury, earl of Bridgwater, earl of Sunderland, earl of Essex, earl of Bath, viscount Fauconberg, viscount Halifax, bishop of London, lord Robarts, lord Hollis, lord Russel, lord Cavendish, secretary Coventry, Sir Francis North, chief justice, Sir Henry Capel, Sir John Ernley, Sir Thomas Chicheley, Sir William Temple, Edward Seymour, Henry Powle.

t

Wodrow’s History of the sufferings of the church of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 28.

u

Algernon Sidney’s letters, p. 90.

w

Temple, vol. i. p. 335.

x

Temple, vol. i. p. 449.

y

Dissertation on parties, letter vii.

z

Vol. i. p. 342.

a

College’s trial.

b

See captain Wilkinson’s narrative.

c

Burnet, vol. i. p. 522.

d

Burnet, vol. i. p. 583. Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 169. This last author, who is much the better authority, mentions only one instance, that of Spreul, which seems to have been an extraordinary one.

e

Wodrow, vol. ii. Appendix, 94.

f

Ibid. vol. ii. passim.

g

Ibid. vol. ii. p. 434.

h

Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 505.

i

Lord Grey’s secret history of the Rye-house plot. This is the most full and authentic account of all these transactions; but is in the main confirmed by bishop Sprat, and even Burnet, as well as by the trials and dying confessions of the conspirators: So that nothing can be more unaccountable than that any one should pretend, that this conspiracy was an imposture like the popish plot. Monmouth’s declaration published in the next reign, confesses a consult for extraordinary remedies.

k

Page 43.

l

In the month of November this year died Prince Rupert, in the sixty-third year of his age. He had left his own country so early, that he had become an entire Englishman, and was even suspected, in his latter days, of a biass to the country party. He was for that reason much neglected at court. The duke of Lauderdale died also this year.

m

It appears from Sir John Dalrymple’s Appendix, that the king received from France a million of livres for his connivance at the seizure of Luxembourg, beside his ordinary pension.

n

The following passage is an extract from M. Barillon’s letters kept in the Depot des Affaires etrangeres at Versailles. It was lately communicated to the author while in France. Convention verbale arretée le 1 avril 1681. Charles 2 s’engage a ne rien omettre pour pouvoir faire connoitre à sa majesté qu’elle avoit raison de prendre confiance en lui; a se degager peu a peu de l’alliance avec l’Espagne, a se mettre en etat de ne point etre contraint par son parlement de faire quelque chose d’opposé aux nouveaux engagemens qu’il prenoit. En consequence le roi promet un subside de deux millions la premiere des trois années de cet engagement 500,000 écus les deux autres, se contentant de la parole de sa majesté Britannique, d’agir à l’egard de sa majesté conformement aux obligations qu’il lui avoit. Le Sr. Hyde demanda que le roi s’engagea a ne point attaquer les pays bas meme Strasbourg, temoignant que le roi son maitre ne pourroit s’empecher de secourir les pais bas, quand même son parlement ne seroit point assemblé. M. Barillon lui repondit en termes generaux par ordre du roi, que sa majesté n’ avoit point intention de rompre la paix, qu’il n’engageroit pas sa majesté Britannique en choses contraires à ses veritables interets.

o

King James’s Memoirs confirm this rumor, as also D’Avaux’s Negotiations, 14 Dec. 1684.

p

Marquess of Halifax.

q

Duke of Buckingham.

r

The quakers’ address was esteemed somewhat singular for its plainness and simplicity. It was conceived in these terms: “We are come to testify our sorrow for the death of our good friend Charles, and our joy for thy being made our governor. We are told thou art not of the persuasion of the church of England, no more than we: Wherefore we hope thou wilt grant us the same liberty, which thou allowest thyself. Which doing, we wish thee all manner of happiness.”

s

Life of lord keeper North, p. 260. K. James’s Memoirs, p. 144.

t

Particularly Sir Edward Herbert’s defence in the state trials, and Sir Robert Atkins’s enquiry concerning the dispensing power.

u

Rot. parl. 1 Hen. V. n. xv.

w

Ibid. 1 Hen V. n. xxii. It is remarkable, however, that in the reign of Richard the Second, the parliament granted the king only a temporary power of dispensing with the statute of provisors. Rot. parl. 15 Rich. II. n. i. A plain implication that he had not, of himself, such prerogative. So uncertain were many of these points at that time.

x

Sir Edward Coke’s reports, seventh report.

y

State Trials, vol. vii. first edit. p. 205. Parl. hist. vol. viii. p. 132.

z

State trials, vol. v. first edit. p. 171.

a

Sir Edward Coke’s reports, twelfth report, p. 18.

b

Sir Robert Atkins, p. 21.

c

It is remarkable, that the convention, summoned by the prince of Orange, did not, even when they had the making of their own terms in the declaration of rights, venture to condemn the dispensing power in general, which had been uniformly exercised by the former kings of England. They only condemned it so far, as it had been assumed and exercised of late, without being able to tell wherein the difference lay. But in the bill of rights, which passed about a twelvemonth after, the parliament took care to secure themselves more effectually against a branch of prerogative, incompatible with all legal liberty and limitations; and they excluded, in positive terms, all dispensing power in the crown. Yet even then the house of lords rejected that clause of the bill, which condemned the exercise of this power in former kings, and obliged the commons to rest content with abolishing it for the future. There needs no other proof of the irregular nature of the old English government, than the existence of such a prerogative, always exercised and never questioned, till the acquisition of real liberty discovered, at last, the danger of it. See the Journals.

d

D’Avaux, 10 January, 1687.

e

The persons named were the archbishop of Canterbury, Sancroft; the bishop of Durham, Crew; of Rochester, Sprat; the earl of Rochester, Sunderland, chancellor Jefferies, and lord chief justice Herbert. The archbishop refused to act, and the bishop of Chester was substituted in his place.

f

The elections in some places, particularly in York, were transferred from the people to the magistrates, who, by the new charter, were all named by the crown. Sir John Reresby’s memoirs, p. 272. This was in reality nothing different from the king’s naming the members. The same act of authority had been employed in all the burroughs of Scotland.

g

When Charles dissolved his last parliament, he set forth a declaration giving his reasons for that measure, and this declaration the clergy had been ordered to read to the people after divine service. These orders were agreeable to their party prejudices, and they willingly submitted to them. The contrary was now the case.

h

The words of the petition were: That the great averseness found in themselves to their distributing and publishing in all their churches your majesty’s late declaration for liberty of conscience, proceeds neither from any want of duty and obedience to your majesty (our holy mother, the church of England, being both in her principles and her constant practice unquestionably loyal, and having to her great honour been more than once publicly acknowledged to be so by your gracious majesty) nor yet from any want of tenderness to dissenters, in relation to whom we are willing to come to such a temper as shall be thought fit, when the matter shall be considered and settled in parliament and convocation. But among many other considerations, from this especially, because that declaration is founded upon such a dispensing power as hath been often declared illegal in parliament, and particularly in the year 1662 and 1672, and in the beginning of your majesty’s reign, and is a matter of so great moment and consequence to the whole nation both in church and state, that your petitioners cannot in prudence, honour, or conscience so far make themselves parties to it as a distribution of it all over the nation and the solemn publication of it once and again, even in God’s house, and in the time of divine service, must amount to in common and reasonable construction.

i

This story is taken notice of in a weekly paper, the Observator, published at that very time, 23d of August, 1682: Party zeal is capable of swallowing the most incredible story; but it is surely singular, that the same calumny, when once baffled, should yet be renewed with such success.

k

Burnet, vol. i. p. 712. D’Avaux, 15th of April, 1688.

l

D’Avaux, 24th of July, 1681; 10th of June, 15th of October, 11th of November, 1688; vol. iv. p. 30.

m

D’Avaux, 21st of January, 1687.

n

Burnet.

o

D’Avaux, 14th and 24th of September, 8th and 15th of October, 1688.

p

D’Avaux was always of that opinion. See his negotiations 6th and 20th May, 18th, 27th of September, 22d of November, 1688. On the whole, that opinion is the most probable.

q

That there really was no new alliance formed betwixt France and England appears both from Sunderland’s apology, and from D’Avaux’s negotiations, lately published: See vol. iv. p. 18. Eng. translation, 27th of September, 1687. 16th of March, 6th of May, 10th of August, 2d, 23d, and 24th of September, 5th, and 7th of October, 11th of November, 1688.

r

His grandfather, the first duke of Ormond, had died this year, on the 21st of July.

s

Such as Rapin Thoyras, Locke, Sidney, Hoadley, c.

t

Lord Clarendon’s speech to the parliament, Oct. 9, 1665.

u

Ralph’s History, vol. i. p. 288. We learn from that lord’s Memoirs, p. 12. that the receipts of the Exchequer, during six years, from 1673 to 1679, were about eight millions two hundred thousand pounds, or one million three hundred sixty-six thousand pounds a-year. See likewise, p. 169.

w

Dalrymple’s Appendix, p. 142.

x

Journals, 29th of December, 1630.

y

Danby’s Memoirs, p. 7.

z

Id. p. 65.

a

Journ. 1st of March, 1689.

b

Journ. 20th of March, 1689.

c

D’Estrades, 20th of October, 1666.

d

Pepys’s Memoirs, p. 4.

e

Memoirs of English affairs, chiefly naval.

f

Lives of the admirals, vol. ii. p. 476.

g

Discourse on the public revenues, part ii. p. 29, 33, 36.

h

Brief observations, c.

i

Life of Clarendon, p. 237.

k

Scobell, i. 44, 134. ii. 88, 230.

l

The duke of Buckingham died on the 16th of April, 1688.

m

Butler died in 1680, aged 68.