The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 (530 page)
Read The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 Online
Authors: David Hume
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/793
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 6
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.
[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 PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
380
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/793
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 6
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.
[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.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
381
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/793
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 6
[d]Burnet, Echard, North, L’Estrange, &c.
[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.
[o]Appendix to Sir John Dalrymple’s Memoirs.
[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 PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
382
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/793
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 6
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.
[y]Dissertation on parties, letter vii.
[b]See captain Wilkinson’s narrative.
[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.
[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.
[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.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
383
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/793
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 6
[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.
[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.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
384
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/793
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 6
[z]State trials, vol. v. first edit. p. 171.
[a]Sir Edward Coke’s reports, twelfth report, p. 18.
[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.
